Should I build or buy a DMARC reporting tool?

Key findings

• Data handling: The raw data from DMARC reports (XML files) is relatively easy to collect. The challenge lies in processing, storing, and presenting this data in an actionable format. For a deeper dive, understand how DMARC works.
• Actionable insights: The primary goal of DMARC reporting is to gain insights that allow you to enforce your policy, mitigate phishing attempts, and identify legitimate sending sources. Without proper analysis, the reports are just data.
• Scalability: Organizations sending millions of emails daily will receive a massive volume of DMARC reports, necessitating a robust system capable of handling and processing this scale efficiently.
• Customization: Building in-house offers the flexibility to tailor dashboards and reporting features precisely to your team's unique requirements, which might not be met by off-the-shelf solutions. Consider self-hosted and free DMARC platforms if customization is key.

Key considerations

• Internal resources: Assess whether your development team has the expertise and bandwidth to not only build the initial system but also to maintain, update, and troubleshoot it long-term. This includes handling potential issues that arise when analyzing DMARC reports.
• Cost of ownership: Beyond initial development, consider ongoing costs for hosting, maintenance, security updates, and potential feature development. This can often exceed the cost of a subscription to a specialized DMARC service.
• Time to value: A commercial tool can be implemented quickly, providing immediate access to DMARC insights. Building in-house, however, involves a longer development cycle before any value can be realized.
• Focus on core business: For many companies, DMARC reporting is a supporting function, not a core product. Outsourcing allows your team to focus on activities that directly contribute to your main business objectives.

Key opinions

• Actionable dashboards: Marketers prioritize dashboards that translate raw DMARC data into clear, actionable insights. This includes identifying new sender domains, authentication alignment issues, and IP lists. This is crucial for DMARC monitoring and response.
• Phishing identification: The ability to quickly identify and act on phishing attempts (especially across a large number of domains) is a critical requirement. This often involves contacting abuse teams to terminate malicious activity.
• Differentiation: Some marketers feel that many DMARC dashboard companies offer similar functionalities, leading to less differentiation in the market. Exploring third-party DMARC vendors can help.
• Open-source options: There's an openness to considering open-source tools like those found on GitHub, especially if the company has existing technical resources like an Elastic Search tool or an IaaS platform.

Key considerations

• Reporting needs: Marketers need to clearly define what information they aim to obtain from DMARC reports and how they intend to use it before deciding on a solution. This helps in identifying the best DMARC report analysis tools.
• Company scale: For companies with high email volumes (e.g., 30-50 million daily emails) and numerous domains, scalability is paramount. The solution must handle a high influx of DMARC reports without performance issues.
• Internal alignment: Involving the internal teams who will use the DMARC reports in the decision-making process is crucial to ensure the chosen tool meets their specific needs and workflow.
• Long-term scalability: The decision should be a strategic, long-term one, considering how the chosen solution will scale with future growth and evolving phishing threats.

Key opinions

• Data presentation is key: The data handling of DMARC reports is considered trivial; the real challenge is presenting it in a way that is actionable for the end-users and aligns with their business model and mail streams. This aligns with understanding DMARC reports.
• Product differentiation: The market for DMARC reporting tools is not deeply differentiated, with many companies offering variations of similar dashboards. This suggests that unique in-house requirements might drive the build decision.
• Filtering and clustering: For organizations dealing with millions of reports, effective filtering and clustering of data are critical. Without these, it's difficult to distinguish legitimate DMARC failures from background noise or actual phishing attempts.
• Beyond monitoring: There's an emphasis on actually digging into DMARC failures for phishing identification rather than just passively monitoring legitimate mail streams, which implies an active, investigative approach.

Key considerations

• User involvement: It is advisable for the teams responsible for using the DMARC reports to evaluate outsourced options. This helps determine if any existing solutions meet their needs, especially since many offerings are similar.
• Resource allocation: Building in-house requires sufficient technical resources not just for initial setup but for ongoing maintenance, especially when dealing with the intricacies of setting up DMARC reports.
• Complexity of issues: If DMARC reports highlight thousands of minor issues and significant background noise, robust filtering and clustering capabilities become indispensable. These are often advanced features of dedicated tools.
• Strategic decision: The choice between building and buying should be a strategic decision, aligning with the company's long-term goals for email security and deliverability. Consider the analysis of DMARC reports.

Key findings

• Report purpose: DMARC reports are essential for understanding how your domain is being used across the internet, particularly regarding authentication outcomes (SPF, DKIM, and DMARC alignment). Learn more about DMARC, SPF, and DKIM.
• Data format: Aggregate reports (RUA) are XML-formatted summaries of email activity, detailing pass/fail rates for SPF and DKIM, DMARC alignment, and sending IPs. Forensic reports (RUF) contain more detailed information about individual failures, but are less commonly used due to privacy concerns and volume.
• Policy enforcement: The data in DMARC reports is intended to help domain owners move their DMARC policy from monitoring (p=none) to quarantine or reject, thereby protecting their brand from phishing and spoofing.
• Source identification: Reports help identify both legitimate and unauthorized sources sending email on behalf of your domain, facilitating better control over your email ecosystem.

Key considerations

• Parsing complexity: While XML is a standard format, parsing and aggregating reports from numerous different mailbox providers can be complex due to variations in report structures and content. This leads many to seek open-source DMARC reporting options.
• Volume management: Even at a p=none policy, the volume of reports can be overwhelming, necessitating robust data storage and processing capabilities. This is especially true for domains with high email traffic.
• Report interpretation: Interpreting aggregate reports requires an understanding of DMARC authentication principles to accurately diagnose issues and identify malicious activity versus legitimate sending errors.
• Continuous monitoring: DMARC reports are sent continuously, requiring an ongoing process for collection, analysis, and action. This highlights the need for a sustainable long-term solution, whether built or bought.