Summary
DMARC RUA reports, or aggregate reports, are essential XML files that provide insights into email authentication results, including SPF and DKIM pass/fail rates. These reports are crucial for understanding how your domain's emails are being handled by receiving mail servers, identifying potential spoofing attempts, and fine-tuning your DMARC policy. However, finding readily available, real-world examples of these XML files can be surprisingly challenging for those new to DMARC or looking for diverse test cases. While the DMARC specification defines the structure, practical examples can greatly aid in analysis and tool development.
Key findings
- Purpose: RUA reports inform domain owners about how emails sent from their domains are being authenticated (or failing authentication) by receiving mail servers. They contain aggregate data, not individual message details.
- Format: These reports are sent as XML files, often compressed (gzipped) and attached to an email. While standardized, their raw form requires parsing for meaningful interpretation.
- Scarcity of examples: There's a notable lack of publicly available, varied DMARC RUA report examples. This makes it difficult for individuals or developers to test parsing tools or understand the nuances of different report types (e.g., from various ISPs).
- Reporting challenges: Setting up a DMARC record to receive RUA reports is straightforward, using the rua tag in your DNS TXT record. However, the sheer volume and raw XML format necessitate specialized DMARC reporting tools.
Key considerations
- Automated processing: Due to their XML structure and volume, DMARC RUA reports are not meant for human consumption. Automated parsing and analysis are essential for deriving actionable insights.
- Importance for deliverability: RUA reports are vital for monitoring your email deliverability. They help you troubleshoot DMARC failures, identify legitimate email sources that are failing authentication, and detect malicious spoofing attempts.
- Policy adjustment: By analyzing RUA reports, domain owners can gradually move their DMARC policy from p=none (monitoring) to p=quarantine or p=reject, increasing email security and brand reputation.
- External sources: For a deeper dive into the specifics of RUA reports and their function within DMARC, resources like DuoCircle's explanation of RUA can provide valuable context.
What email marketers say
Email marketers and deliverability professionals often express a clear need for accessible DMARC RUA report examples. The primary challenge lies not in the concept of DMARC or RUA reports themselves, but in the practical application of understanding and processing the raw XML data. Marketers frequently seek ways to easily visualize authentication results to make informed decisions about their sending practices and to justify policy changes to stakeholders. The scarcity of diverse sample data exacerbates this challenge, making it harder to develop or test parsing solutions and educate teams on the nuances of DMARC reporting.
Key opinions
- Need for examples: Many marketers require actual XML report files to understand their structure and test parsing tools. Screen-shottable examples are particularly valuable for presentations and internal training.
- Data visualization: Raw RUA reports are difficult to interpret. Marketers prefer visual dashboards or summarized data that show trends in SPF, DKIM, and DMARC alignment, rather than sifting through complex XML.
- Testing and validation: There's a desire for test domains with various DMARC configurations to assess how different policies and sending scenarios impact report generation and content.
- Publicly available data: A common sentiment is the surprising lack of easily discoverable, publicly available sample data or test vectors for DMARC and other email-related protocols.
Key considerations
- Leveraging reporting tools: Given the complexity of raw XML, marketers should utilize tools designed to analyze DMARC reports and present data in an understandable format.
- Managing volume: Understanding the expected volume of DMARC reports and having a strategy for managing them is crucial to avoid email overload.
- Seeking community support: When specific examples or test data are hard to find, leveraging communities like Spiceworks can be beneficial, as discussed in their thread on receiving DMARC aggregate reports in readable formats.
- Redaction: When sharing examples, it's generally safe to redact sensitive domain information, though some providers may offer reports without the need for redaction.
Marketer view
An Email Geeks marketer noted their surprise at the lack of good DMARC RUA document examples publicly available. They highlighted the unexpected difficulty in finding real-world instances of these reports. This absence creates a hurdle for those trying to understand the nuances of report structures or develop their own parsing solutions without live data. The marketer expressed that this scarcity makes it challenging for email professionals to gain practical experience with DMARC report analysis, especially when they need to demonstrate the report format or test processing logic. It underscores a gap in accessible educational resources for DMARC implementation.
Marketer view
A marketer from DuoCircle's resources indicates that the RUA tag within a DMARC record specifies the email address where aggregate reports should be sent. This highlights the crucial role of the RUA tag in enabling domain owners to receive these vital authentication summaries. The resource further clarifies that this email ID typically belongs to the sending organization, ensuring that the appropriate internal teams receive the data necessary for monitoring and improving email deliverability.
What the experts say
Email deliverability experts consistently advocate for the use of DMARC RUA reports as a cornerstone of robust email authentication and deliverability strategy. They recognize that while raw XML reports are complex, the data they contain is invaluable for identifying issues with legitimate sending, detecting unauthorized use of a domain, and making informed policy adjustments. Experts often emphasize the importance of systematic processing of these reports, whether through third-party services or custom solutions, to extract actionable insights. They also acknowledge the ongoing challenge of obtaining diverse test data to thoroughly validate DMARC configurations and reporting tools.
Key opinions
- Data availability: Experts recognize the difficulty in finding public examples of DMARC RUA reports and test configurations, which is a hurdle for comprehensive testing and learning.
- Importance of analysis: While the reports are in XML, the underlying data is critical for monitoring email streams, understanding authentication results, and making strategic decisions.
- Value of aggregate data: RUA reports, despite their aggregate nature, provide a holistic view of email authentication across various receivers, which is essential for identifying broad trends and potential issues.
- Proactive management: Leveraging RUA reports allows domain owners to proactively adjust their DMARC, SPF, and DKIM configurations, improving deliverability and protecting their brand from abuse.
Key considerations
- Tooling is key: Experts recommend using specialized DMARC report analysis services that can parse the XML into readable dashboards, enabling efficient monitoring and decision-making.
- Understanding all DMARC components: A solid grasp of how RUA reports fit into the broader DMARC, SPF, and DKIM ecosystem is crucial for effective email authentication. For more information, refer to a simple guide to DMARC, SPF, and DKIM.
- Strategic implementation: RUA reports are fundamental for a phased DMARC implementation, starting with a monitoring-only policy (p=none) and gradually moving to enforcement (p=quarantine, p=reject) based on report data.
- Forensic data (RUF): While RUA reports are aggregate, experts also highlight the existence of RUF (forensic) reports for more granular, message-level details, though these are sent less frequently due to privacy concerns. DuoCircle offers a good explanation of both aggregate and forensic DMARC reports.
Expert view
An expert from Email Geeks quickly responded to a request for DMARC RUA report examples, indicating a willingness to share. This points to a common practice among experts in the deliverability community of supporting each other with real-world data and insights, especially when public examples are scarce. Their readiness to assist underscores the collaborative nature of the field, where practical data exchange can significantly accelerate learning and troubleshooting for others.
Expert view
An expert from SpamResource.com regularly emphasizes the critical role of DMARC RUA reports in understanding email authentication failures. They state that these aggregate reports are the primary source of feedback for domain owners to see how their emails are performing against DMARC policies at various receiving mail servers. The expert highlights that without analyzing these reports, domain owners are essentially flying blind, unable to identify legitimate sending sources that might be misconfigured or to detect malicious actors spoofing their domain.
What the documentation says
Official DMARC documentation and related RFCs provide the foundational understanding of RUA reports, detailing their XML structure, the data elements they contain, and their intended purpose within the DMARC framework. These documents emphasize that RUA reports are designed to offer domain owners a high-level overview of their email authentication results across the global email ecosystem. They specify the format for the XML report, including details on volume, disposition, and authentication results (SPF and DKIM). While comprehensive in their technical descriptions, they typically do not include real-world examples, leaving their interpretation and practical application to implementers and DMARC service providers.
Key findings
- RFC 7489 standard: The DMARC specification, outlined in RFC 7489, formally defines the structure and content of aggregate (RUA) reports. This standard ensures consistency across different reporting entities.
- XML format: Reports are delivered in XML format, compressed with gzip. The XML includes elements like <report_metadata>, <policy_published>, and <record> sections.
- Data elements: Each <record> typically includes the source IP address, the number of emails sent from that IP, the DMARC policy applied (e.g., none, quarantine, reject), and authentication results for SPF and DKIM.
- Aggregate nature: RUA reports provide aggregated data over a specified period (e.g., 24 hours), offering statistical summaries rather than individual email details. This is key for privacy and managing data volume.
Key considerations
- Parsing requirements: To make sense of RUA reports, it is essential to have a system in place that can parse the XML and present the data in a human-readable format. This often involves either using a dedicated DMARC service or developing custom scripts.
- DMARC tag definitions: Understanding the various DMARC tags and their meanings (e.g., p, rua, pct) is fundamental to interpreting the reports accurately.
- Benefits of implementation: The documentation implicitly highlights the benefits of implementing DMARC, such as enhanced email security, improved deliverability, and better brand protection through the insights provided by RUA reports.
- Standard examples: For a deeper understanding of DMARC records and their common configurations, including how the rua tag fits in, resources like EmailTooltester's DMARC record examples can be helpful.
Technical article
The RFC 7489 documentation specifies that a DMARC record defines how receiving mail servers should handle unauthenticated messages and where to send reports. It details the use of the rua tag to designate the recipient email address for aggregate reports. This tag is critical for enabling the feedback loop that DMARC provides. It explains that these reports are sent in an XML format, compressed, and contain statistical data about messages that pass or fail SPF and DKIM authentication against the domain's DMARC policy, allowing for comprehensive monitoring without revealing message content.
Technical article
DMARC.org's official guides indicate that RUA reports provide a clear picture of email authentication trends, showing the volume of emails, IP addresses of senders, and the disposition (pass/fail) of SPF and DKIM authentication results. This granular data, despite being aggregated, is essential for identifying all legitimate sending sources. The documentation emphasizes that analyzing these reports helps domain owners confirm that their DMARC, SPF, and DKIM records are correctly configured and that all authorized email streams are properly authenticated, which is vital before moving to a stricter DMARC policy like quarantine or reject.
Related resources
7 resources
Related pages
What are the best third-party vendors and open-source options for DMARC reporting?
What are the best practices for DMARC setup, including organizational and subdomain policies and reporting?
List of DMARC tags and their meanings
How many DMARC report emails should I expect to receive daily and how should I manage them?
What tools can analyze DMARC reports into an easy-to-read format?
The benefits of implementing DMARC
A simple guide to DMARC, SPF, and DKIM
Simple DMARC examples: how to start with a p=none policy
How to safely transition your DMARC policy to quarantine or reject
Understanding and troubleshooting DMARC reports from Google and Yahoo
