Summary
When transitioning your DMARC configuration from a p=none policy (monitoring only) to p=quarantine (directing non-compliant emails to spam or junk), the common advice varies between incremental rollout and a direct switch. While a gradual approach using the pct tag is often recommended to mitigate risks, some experts and marketers suggest a direct jump if DMARC reports indicate strong authentication alignment and no major issues. This decision largely hinges on the confidence in your existing SPF and DKIM configurations and the thoroughness of your DMARC reporting analysis.
Key findings
- Incremental vs. direct: There isn't a universally mandated warming protocol for DMARC policy changes, unlike IP or domain warming.
- Percentage tag: The pct tag allows for a phased rollout, applying the policy to a percentage of emails first.
- ISP compliance: Some internet service providers (ISPs) may not fully respect the pct tag consistently.
- Direct switch viability: A direct switch to p=quarantine can be acceptable if DMARC reports under p=none show no significant issues with legitimate mail failing authentication.
Key considerations
- Report analysis: Thoroughly review your DMARC aggregate and forensic reports while on p=none to identify all legitimate sending sources and any authentication failures. This is a critical step, as highlighted in how to safely transition your DMARC policy to quarantine or reject.
- Impact on legitimate mail: Be aware that implementing p=quarantine means unauthenticated, but otherwise legitimate, emails could be sent to spam. This is why some choose to implement p=none to begin with.
- BIMI requirements: If your goal includes implementing BIMI, full DMARC enforcement (100% p=quarantine or p=reject) is generally required. The BIMI Group FAQs clarify these requirements.
- Subdomain impact: Consider how the policy applies to subdomains. Many DMARC best practices involve explicit subdomain policies (e.g., sp=quarantine).
What email marketers say
Email marketers often approach the transition to DMARC p=quarantine with a mix of caution and pragmatism. While some advocate for a measured, incremental shift, others prefer a more direct approach once confident in their authentication setup. Their experiences highlight the practical considerations that arise when moving beyond a monitoring-only DMARC policy.
Key opinions
- Ease into it: Many marketers prefer to use the pct tag and gradually increase enforcement, especially if they are new to DMARC or have complex sending environments. This is a common practice when dealing with DMARC implementation and managing email deliverability issues.
- Go all at once: Some marketers find that if their DMARC reports under p=none show strong alignment and no issues, a direct switch to 100% p=quarantine is efficient.
- No warming: Unlike IP or domain warming, there isn't a specific warming phase for DMARC policy changes, as authentication is either aligned or not.
- Focus on DMARC reports: Regardless of the approach, continuous monitoring of DMARC reports remains essential to detect any unintended consequences.
Key considerations
- Review authentication: Before any change, ensure your SPF and DKIM are fully aligned and covering all legitimate sending sources. This foundational work is crucial for DMARC to function as intended, as discussed in the different DMARC policies.
- Potential for false positives: A swift move to p=quarantine without adequate preparation can lead to legitimate emails being quarantined, potentially affecting campaign performance and email deliverability rates.
- ISP variability: Recognize that not all ISPs handle the pct tag identically. This variability might influence the effectiveness of an incremental rollout strategy, as mentioned by Threatcop.
- BIMI enforcement: If BIMI is a goal, understand that it requires full DMARC enforcement at 100%, meaning the pct tag will eventually need to be removed or set to 100.
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks indicates that the decision to switch DMARC from none to quarantine incrementally or all at once largely depends on individual comfort and confidence. While a phased approach using the pct tag is an option, it's not strictly necessary from a technical warming perspective for DMARC. The main goal is to reach 100% enforcement, especially if pursuing other authentication standards like BIMI.
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks suggests that some ISPs may not reliably respect the DMARC pct (percentage) setting. This can make an incremental rollout less effective than anticipated, as the policy might be applied to more emails than intended. Therefore, if you have confidence in your DMARC reporting and have not observed any red flags, a direct jump to 100% enforcement might be more straightforward. The critical prerequisite is to ensure your DMARC reports, while at p=none, indicate that all legitimate mail sources are properly authenticating.
What the experts say
Email deliverability experts generally recommend a phased approach when transitioning DMARC policies, typically moving from p=none to p=quarantine incrementally. This strategy is designed to minimize the risk of legitimate email being misclassified or blocked. Their advice centers on careful monitoring of DMARC reports to ensure full authentication coverage before increasing enforcement.
Key opinions
- Gradual transition is safest: Most experts advocate for a step-by-step increase in DMARC enforcement, often using the pct tag, to avoid unintended impact on legitimate email flow. This is a common theme across DMARC best practices.
- Policy progression: The standard progression involves moving from p=none, to p=quarantine, and finally to p=reject, with careful monitoring at each stage.
- Report-driven decisions: Decisions to move to stricter policies should always be based on comprehensive DMARC reports that show minimal or no legitimate emails failing authentication. This ensures that you aren't creating new deliverability issues, such as emails going to spam.
- Alignment is key: Experts emphasize that successful DMARC enforcement relies heavily on correct SPF and DKIM alignment for all authorized sending sources, including those from third-party senders.
Key considerations
- Mitigate mail loss: A primary concern for experts is preventing the loss or misdelivery of legitimate emails. The gradual approach provides a safety net against this, as explained in articles about safely implementing DMARC policies.
- Consistent monitoring: Even after moving to p=quarantine, continuous monitoring of DMARC reports is vital to detect any new issues or changes in email flow, or if your DMARC success rate is suddenly dropping.
- Third-party senders: Experts often point out the challenge of ensuring DMARC alignment for emails sent via third-party services. These sources must be properly configured to avoid being quarantined. Postmastery discusses various DMARC policy considerations.
- Domain reputation: A well-executed DMARC implementation, even incremental, enhances domain reputation and trustworthiness, which is crucial for overall email deliverability.
Expert view
Expert from SpamResource.com emphasizes the importance of a phased DMARC rollout, particularly when moving towards enforcement policies like quarantine or reject. They suggest starting with a p=none policy to gather comprehensive reports and identify all legitimate sending sources. This initial monitoring phase is critical for understanding your email ecosystem and ensuring that SPF and DKIM are properly configured for all your sending domains and subdomains. A misconfiguration, if left unaddressed, could lead to legitimate emails being quarantined or rejected once stricter DMARC policies are in place.
Expert view
Expert from WordToTheWise recommends a cautious approach to DMARC enforcement. They advise against jumping directly to p=quarantine or p=reject without first having a clear picture of all legitimate sending IP addresses and domains. This involves collecting and analyzing DMARC reports for a sufficient period to identify any shadow IT or unauthorized senders. The goal is to prevent legitimate mail from being filtered incorrectly.
What the documentation says
Official DMARC documentation and related industry best practices consistently advocate for a measured, incremental rollout of DMARC policies, especially when advancing from a monitoring-only policy (p=none) to an enforcement policy like p=quarantine. This approach ensures that organizations can thoroughly understand their email ecosystem and address any authentication shortcomings before implementing stricter controls that might affect legitimate mail.
Key findings
- Policy definitions: Documentation defines p=none for reporting only, while p=quarantine instructs recipients to quarantine or junk non-compliant emails.
- Incremental adoption: The use of the pct tag is a documented method for applying the policy to a small percentage of mail first, gradually increasing it.
- Reporting is paramount: Consistent review of DMARC aggregate (RUA) and forensic (RUF) reports is crucial at every stage of the policy rollout.
- Security benefits: Moving to p=quarantine significantly enhances protection against spoofing and phishing by providing clear instructions to receiving mail servers.
Key considerations
- Data-driven decisions: Documentation emphasizes making DMARC policy changes based on accurate and complete reporting data to avoid negative impacts on deliverability. This includes understanding the various DMARC tags and their meanings.
- Avoiding premature enforcement: Implementing p=quarantine before resolving all authentication issues can lead to legitimate emails being junked, effectively blocking your own mail.
- Alignment verification: The documentation highlights the critical role of SPF and DKIM authentication and alignment in DMARC enforcement. Both must be correctly configured for all legitimate sending domains and subdomains.
- Subdomain policies: Official guides often detail the importance of explicit subdomain policies (e.g., sp=quarantine) to ensure comprehensive protection across all your digital properties, a key part of best practices for DMARC setup. Additionally, Microsoft's requirements reinforce the need for careful DMARC policy implementation.
Technical article
Documentation from Threatcop emphasizes that when switching a DMARC policy to an enforcement mode like quarantine or reject, it is highly recommended to do so in small, incremental steps. This gradual approach typically involves using the percentage (pct) tag within your DMARC record. This method allows for careful monitoring of email deliverability and authentication rates as the policy becomes stricter, reducing the risk of unintended disruptions to legitimate email traffic.
Technical article
Documentation from EmailTooltester.com provides clear examples of DMARC record configurations, including the p=quarantine policy. They explain that this policy indicates that emails failing DMARC checks should be moved to the spam folder or otherwise quarantined by the receiving mail server. They also highlight the utility of the pct tag, such as pct=50, to specify that the policy should only apply to a percentage of the failing emails, enabling a gradual rollout.
Related resources
12 resources
Related pages
How to implement DMARC p=reject policy safely to avoid email deliverability issues?
When should you use DMARC p=none, p=quarantine, or p=reject policies?
What are the best practices for DMARC implementation, including tag definition and tool recommendations?
Why did changing DMARC policy to quarantine send emails to spam, and how to fix it?
List of DMARC tags and their meanings
DMARC record and policy examples
The benefits of implementing DMARC
How to fix common DMARC issues in Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace
How to safely transition your DMARC policy to quarantine or reject
Understanding and troubleshooting DMARC reports from Google and Yahoo
