How do you analyze DMARC reports using report-uri.com?

Key findings

• Report collection: Report-uri.com successfully collects DMARC aggregate reports sent by internet service providers.
• User interface: The user interface is often described as cumbersome, making it challenging to interpret the data presented.
• Data accessibility: Direct access to raw XML files or easy export options for further analysis are limited or non-existent.
• Primary function: It serves more as a basic report aggregator with some visualization, rather than a comprehensive analytical tool for DMARC report analysis.
• Cost: It is a paid service, which may lead users to expect more robust analytical capabilities.

Key considerations

• In-depth analysis: For detailed analysis, such as identifying unrecognized sending sources or troubleshooting low volume DMARC failures, direct XML access or a more powerful tool is necessary.
• Alternative tools: Many specialized DMARC reporting services offer more advanced dashboards and analytical features.
• Export functionality: The inability to export reports into formats like CSV limits their use in other reporting engines or for custom analysis.
• Integration: Consider if the service integrates with other tools you might use for email or web security monitoring.
• Understanding aggregate reports: These reports provide a high-level overview of SPF and DKIM performance, but a deeper dive is often needed. More information about this can be found at URIports Blog's instant DMARC reports.

Key opinions

• Cumbersome UI: The user interface can be difficult to navigate and interpret, often feeling as complicated as reading raw XML.
• Limited export: There seems to be no straightforward way to export the reports for use in other analytical platforms.
• Basic visualization: While it offers some graphs, these are often insufficient for deep diagnostic work needed by marketers.
• Not a primary choice: Marketers typically wouldn't choose it specifically for DMARC analysis unless they are already using it for other web security header monitoring.
• Lack of detailed insight: It can be difficult to discern key details like originating IP addresses from the reports provided.

Key considerations

• Actionable insights: Marketers need tools that quickly translate DMARC data into actionable steps to troubleshoot DMARC failures.
• Tool comparison: When choosing a DMARC reporting tool, it's beneficial to compare what various DMARC report analysis services offer in terms of usability and depth of reporting.
• Data integration: Consider whether the tool allows data integration with existing marketing analytics platforms.
• Ease of use: A tool that is as difficult to use as reading raw XML may not provide significant value for time-constrained marketing teams. A community discussion on DMARC tools can be found on Privacy Guides Community.

Key opinions

• Data utility: Many smaller dashboard vendors simplify XML reports to the point where they lose their original analytical value, treating them as an engineering problem rather than the core point of DMARC.
• Forensic detail: A key limitation is the inability to easily identify originating IP addresses without manual, individual XML file review, which is inefficient for detailed analysis.
• Integration considerations: Report-uri.com may not be a first choice for DMARC analysis unless the client is already using it for other web security headers like CORS or HTTP.
• Custom solutions: Some experts prefer to build simple internal tools that convert DMARC XML reports into more manageable formats, such as CSV, for easier analysis.
• Authenticity verification: Proper DMARC, DKIM, and SPF setup and ongoing monitoring are crucial for identifying fraudulent email sources. Scott Helme's blog on DMARC reporting details these aspects.

Key considerations

• Comprehensive analysis: A DMARC reporting tool should facilitate comprehensive analysis, allowing users to delve into the details of authentication results and identify the root causes of failures.
• Data export: The ability to export raw XML or parsed data (e.g., CSV) is essential for integrating with other analytical systems or for offline troubleshooting.
• Policy enforcement: Understanding how DMARC works and how its reports inform policy adjustments (p=none, p=quarantine, p=reject) is critical for domain protection.
• Troubleshooting: Effective tools should aid in troubleshooting DMARC failures by providing clear insights into authentication and alignment issues.

Key findings

• Report purpose: DMARC aggregate reports are intended to provide domain holders with high-level overviews of email authentication outcomes.
• XML format: These reports are delivered in a structured XML format, requiring programmatic parsing for effective analysis.
• Data content: They include critical information such as message volume, SPF and DKIM authentication results, and the DMARC policy applied.
• RFC standards: The structure and content of DMARC reports are defined by RFCs, ensuring a standardized approach to email authentication monitoring. The IETF Datatracker provides details on aggregate reporting.

Key considerations

• Parsing necessity: Raw XML is not human-readable and necessitates dedicated tools or scripts for parsing and visualization.
• Data interpretation: Accurate interpretation of reports requires understanding specific DMARC tags and their meanings, as outlined in the documentation.
• Comprehensive view: Effective DMARC monitoring aggregates data from various Mailbox Providers to provide a complete picture of email traffic and authentication results. For example, understanding DMARC reports from Google and Yahoo is crucial.
• Forensic reports (RUF): While less commonly implemented, documentation also defines forensic (RUF) reports, which offer detailed, per-message failure data for deeper investigation.