Summary
Emails landing in spam can be a frustrating issue for any sender. Often, the root cause lies not just in the absence of email authentication protocols like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, but in their improper configuration leading to alignment failures. DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance) is particularly sensitive to alignment, as it requires SPF and DKIM to authenticate messages using the domain specified in the From: header. When these checks fail, internet service providers (ISPs) and mailbox providers, adhering to your DMARC policy, may flag your emails as suspicious, routing them directly to the spam or junk folder (or even rejecting them entirely), thus impacting your email deliverability and sender reputation.
Key findings
- Alignment requirement: DMARC requires that the domain in the From: header (RFC5322.From) align with the domain used for SPF (RFC5321.MailFrom, also known as Return-Path) or DKIM (d= domain in the signature).
- DMARC policy impact: A DMARC policy set to p=quarantine or p=reject explicitly instructs receiving mail servers to send emails failing alignment to spam or reject them entirely, rather than delivering them to the inbox.
- ESP configuration: Many email service providers (ESPs), by default, send emails in a way that SPF or DKIM may not align with your domain unless specific custom authentication settings are configured, such as using a custom return-path or delegated DKIM signing.
- Troubleshooting methodology: Analyzing email headers and spam test reports can reveal which authentication checks (SPF, DKIM) are failing and whether alignment issues are present, helping pinpoint the exact cause of deliverability problems.
Key considerations
- Domain consistency: Ensure the domain in your From: header consistently matches the domains used for SPF and DKIM authentication. This is crucial for DMARC alignment.
- Custom return path and DKIM: If using an ESP, investigate options for custom return paths (for SPF alignment) and delegated DKIM signing with your own domain, rather than the ESP's default domains. This directly addresses alignment issues.
- DMARC policy adjustment: If you are encountering unexpected spam placement due to DMARC alignment failures, consider temporarily downgrading your DMARC policy to p=none while you work on achieving proper SPF and DKIM alignment. This allows you to monitor DMARC reports without impacting deliverability while you fix issues. You can find more details on DMARC policy settings in our DMARC record and policy examples guide.
- Continuous monitoring: Regularly check your DMARC reports to identify authentication and alignment issues across all your sending sources. This proactive approach helps maintain optimal deliverability and prevent emails from landing in the spam folder.
What email marketers say
Email marketers often face challenges with deliverability, especially when using third-party email service providers (ESPs). A common pain point arises when emails authenticated by SPF and DKIM still land in spam, primarily due to DMARC alignment failures. This indicates a gap in understanding how SPF, DKIM, and DMARC interact, particularly concerning domain alignment requirements. Many marketers operate under the assumption that simply having these records published is sufficient, not realizing the critical role alignment plays in DMARC enforcement.
Key opinions
- Misconception about DMARC: Some marketers are unaware that a DMARC policy set to p=quarantine or p=reject actively tells ISPs to treat non-aligned emails as spam, even if SPF or DKIM pass the basic authentication check.
- ESP default settings: It's a common observation that ESPs often don't configure SPF or DKIM to align with the From: domain by default, leading to DMARC failures unless custom settings are applied.
- Domain ownership complexity: For organizations using multiple sub-domains or distinct program domains, managing alignment across all sending sources can be complex, as each domain requires proper authentication setup for DMARC compliance.
- Immediate fix preference: Marketers often seek quick solutions, such as aligning the DKIM signing domain with the From: domain, as this can be a simpler path to DMARC pass than reconfiguring SPF for alignment.
Key considerations
- Review ESP settings: Actively check if your ESP offers custom domain setup for SPF (via custom return-path or bounce domain) and DKIM signing, and ensure these are configured to align with your From: domain. This is essential for successful SPF alignment.
- Gradual DMARC rollout: Start with a p=none DMARC policy to gather reports and identify all legitimate sending sources before moving to p=quarantine or p=reject. Our guide on safely transitioning your DMARC policy provides a detailed roadmap.
- Internal communication: Collaborate with all teams sending emails (e.g., marketing, transactional, support) to ensure they are aware of DMARC requirements and are configuring their sending platforms correctly for alignment.
- Monitoring spam tests: Regularly run spam tests and analyze the authentication results to quickly identify and rectify any new or recurring alignment issues.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks explains their deliverability isn't their strong suit. They observe that a Constant Contact email goes to spam, while a Mailchimp one does not, despite running spam tests and seeing SPF and DKIM alignment failures on the Constant Contact email, and a DKIM test failure on Mailchimp that isn't marked as an issue. They are unsure how to proceed with these observations.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks confirms they noticed that on Mailchimp, their DMARC is also set to p=quarantine, but the sender and DKIM domains are correctly aligned. This alignment helps explain why Mailchimp emails are delivered successfully despite a strict DMARC policy, unlike Constant Contact.
What the experts say
Experts emphasize that while SPF and DKIM are foundational for email authentication, DMARC introduces the critical concept of domain alignment. Without alignment, even emails that successfully pass SPF or DKIM may fail DMARC, leading to rejection or placement in the spam folder, particularly when an enforcing DMARC policy (p=quarantine or p=reject) is in place. Many email service providers (ESPs) do not inherently support alignment for all sending scenarios, requiring senders to take proactive steps to ensure their authentication protocols align with their From: domain.
Key opinions
- DMARC policy enforcement: Experts universally agree that setting a DMARC policy to p=quarantine or p=reject without proper SPF and DKIM alignment across all mail streams will inevitably lead to emails being quarantined or rejected.
- Alignment is paramount: The core of DMARC's effectiveness lies in domain alignment. If the domain in the From: header doesn't align with either the SPF MailFrom or DKIM d= tag, DMARC will fail.
- Sender responsibility: The onus is on the sender to ensure all legitimate mail is authenticated and aligned before moving to an enforcing DMARC policy. This includes configuring third-party senders like ESPs correctly.
- DMARC reports are key: Monitoring DMARC aggregate and forensic reports is essential to gain visibility into authentication failures and identify sources of unaligned mail, whether legitimate or fraudulent.
Key considerations
- Prioritize authentication setup: Before implementing DMARC at an enforcing policy, verify that all email streams have correctly configured SPF and DKIM records that align with your organizational domain. This is a prerequisite for a smooth DMARC deployment.
- Use a p=none policy initially: Deploying DMARC with p=none is recommended to gather data and identify non-compliant senders without affecting deliverability. Only escalate the policy after achieving high alignment rates. Our guide on simple DMARC examples provides further insight.
- Audit third-party senders: Work with all third-party vendors (e.g., marketing platforms, transactional email services) to ensure they support DMARC alignment and are configured to sign emails with your domain. This might involve setting up CNAME records or specific sender identities. You might also want to understand why third-party emails are getting rejected by ISPs.
- Understand domain roles: Distinguish between the From: domain, SPF's MailFrom domain, and DKIM's d= domain. For DMARC alignment, at least one of these must match the From: domain, either in strict or relaxed mode.
Expert view
Deliverability expert from SpamResource emphasizes that proper SPF and DKIM setup is necessary but insufficient for optimal deliverability. They highlight that DMARC is the protocol that truly enforces domain alignment, and without it, your authenticated emails might still be treated as suspicious by receiving servers, especially if your DMARC policy is set to quarantine or reject.
Expert view
Email expert from Word to the Wise explains that DMARC failures often stem from a lack of understanding regarding SPF and DKIM alignment requirements. They note that many senders correctly publish SPF and DKIM records but fail to ensure that the domains used in these records match or are subdomains of the From: header domain, which is essential for DMARC to pass.
What the documentation says
Official documentation for DMARC (RFC 7489) explicitly defines the concept of identifier alignment for both SPF and DKIM. It specifies that for a message to pass DMARC, at least one of these authentication mechanisms must pass its check, and its domain identifier must align with the organizational domain of the From: header. Documentation from major mailbox providers (like Google, Yahoo, Microsoft) further reinforces these requirements, often setting expectations for DMARC enforcement to combat email spoofing and phishing, directly impacting how unaligned mail is handled (e.g., sent to spam or rejected).
Key findings
- DMARC specification: DMARC defines that an email passes if either SPF or DKIM passes, AND the domain used for that authentication aligns with the From: header domain. Alignment can be relaxed (base domain matches) or strict (exact domain match).
- SPF alignment mechanism: For SPF, alignment means the RFC5321.MailFrom domain (envelope sender) must align with the RFC5322.From domain (header From).
- DKIM alignment mechanism: For DKIM, alignment means the d= (signing) domain in the DKIM signature must align with the RFC5322.From domain.
- ISP requirements: Major email providers (e.g., Gmail, Yahoo, Microsoft) are increasingly stringent with DMARC enforcement, particularly for bulk senders. They expect DMARC alignment to pass to ensure emails reach the inbox and to combat phishing attempts.
Key considerations
- DMARC policy application: The p= tag in your DMARC record dictates the action to be taken on non-aligned emails: none (monitor only), quarantine (send to spam), or reject (block entirely).
- Subdomain handling: DMARC policies can apply to subdomains, or a separate sp= tag can be used to set a specific policy for subdomains. This is important for organizations with complex domain structures.
- Reporting mechanisms: Utilize the rua (aggregate) and ruf (forensic) tags in your DMARC record to receive reports on email authentication and alignment. These reports are crucial for identifying and fixing issues. More on these can be found in our guide to DMARC reports.
- Compliance with ISP guidelines: Familiarize yourself with specific sender requirements from major ISPs like Gmail and Yahoo, as they often publish detailed guidelines for DMARC implementation and alignment. For example, Microsoft's requirements for high-volume senders clearly state the need for strong authentication.
Technical article
RFC 7489 (DMARC) states that the DMARC mechanism relies on the concept of 'identifier alignment'. This means that for a message to pass DMARC, the domain used in the authentication methods (SPF's MailFrom or DKIM's d= domain) must be consistent with the organizational domain found in the RFC5322.From header.
Technical article
Google's Postmaster Tools documentation specifies that a low DMARC pass rate, often due to alignment failures, can negatively impact sender reputation and lead to emails being classified as spam. They encourage senders to resolve these issues for improved inbox placement and email ecosystem health.
Related resources
6 resources
Related pages
Why does DMARC authentication fail when SPF and DKIM pass, and how can it be fixed?
Why does SPF pass in headers but not Google Postmaster Tools, and what are domain alignment best practices?
How to troubleshoot DMARC failures and their impact on email deliverability?
A simple guide to DMARC, SPF, and DKIM
Why your emails are getting a 'DMARC verification failed' error
How to fix common DMARC issues in Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace
How to safely transition your DMARC policy to quarantine or reject
Solving the SPF alignment puzzle for google workspace alias domains
How to comply with outlook's new sender requirements
Why your emails are going to spam in 2024 and how to fix it
