Summary
Diagnosing DMARC failures can often seem counterintuitive, especially when authentication checks for SPF, DKIM, and DMARC appear to pass at a glance. However, a deeper dive into DMARC reports is essential to uncover the actual reasons behind delivery issues. These reports provide invaluable insights into how receiving mail servers are handling your mail, revealing discrepancies that simpler checks might miss. Understanding the nuances of DMARC reporting is key to maintaining strong email deliverability.
Key findings
- Report utility: DMARC reports (RUA and RUF) are the primary source for identifying why emails fail DMARC, even when authentication seemingly passes. They offer granular data on rejected emails.
- Alignment issues: A common cause for DMARC failures, despite SPF or DKIM passing, is a lack of alignment between the 'From' header domain and the authenticated domain. This is a critical component of DMARC.
- Source identification: Reports help pinpoint the originating IP addresses and domains that are sending mail on your behalf. This includes legitimate senders not properly configured or malicious actors spoofing your domain.
- Policy enforcement: Even with a 'p=reject' policy, DMARC failures can still occur, indicating that mail is being rejected according to your policy, but the underlying authentication or alignment is still an issue.
- Header review: While DMARC reports are scalable, examining individual email headers can provide immediate, detailed insights for specific messages, especially during initial troubleshooting.
Key considerations
- Granular data analysis: Don't just look at aggregated pass/fail rates. Dive into the detailed DMARC reports to understand why authentication fails for specific streams or IPs.
- Beyond authentication: Remember DMARC relies on alignment in addition to SPF and DKIM authentication. A pass in SPF or DKIM doesn't automatically mean a DMARC pass without proper alignment.
- Monitoring continuously: DMARC reports should be monitored regularly to catch new unauthenticated sources or changes in sending practices that might affect deliverability. This proactive approach prevents widespread issues.
- Vendor collaboration: If using third-party senders, ensure they properly align with your DMARC policy. This often requires working with them to configure their SPF or DKIM records to match your sending domain.
- Refer to official documentation: The official DMARC documentation provides comprehensive details on how the protocol works.
What email marketers say
Email marketers often face challenges interpreting DMARC failure reports, especially when their internal checks show successful SPF, DKIM, and DMARC authentication. The confusion usually stems from not understanding the depth of information available within DMARC aggregate reports or realizing that authentication for one domain doesn't necessarily mean alignment for the 'From' header domain. Marketers need practical guidance on leveraging these reports to identify the true source of deliverability issues, whether it's misconfigurations or malicious spoofing.
Key opinions
- DMARC reports are key: Many marketers emphasize that DMARC reports are designed precisely to provide data on rejected emails, making them the first place to look for failure analysis.
- Granular search: Marketers find it most effective to search their DMARC reporting systems for specific failures, such as those from Gmail, to see the SPF/DKIM strings and originating IPs.
- Distinguishing issues: It's important to use report data to determine if failures are due to legitimate mail that isn't properly authenticated or if they are from domain spoofing that DMARC is successfully blocking.
- Header limitations: While helpful for individual emails, relying solely on email headers for diagnosing widespread DMARC failures is inefficient, especially when only a small percentage of messages are affected.
- Alignment focus: The critical role of identifier alignment in DMARC success is a recurring theme, often overlooked when SPF and DKIM appear to pass.
Key considerations
- Leverage reporting tools: Utilize DMARC analysis and reporting tools to simplify the complex XML data into actionable insights, helping to interpret unrecognized email sending sources.
- Understand DMARC's purpose: Recognize that DMARC's purpose is not just to authenticate your mail but also to enable you to receive reports on mail failing authentication, including mail spoofing your domain.
- Proactive troubleshooting: Actively use failure data to troubleshoot email authentication failures and adjust configurations or sending practices accordingly.
- Address all sending sources: Ensure all legitimate sending sources, including third-party services, are properly configured with SPF and DKIM and achieve DMARC alignment. This includes reviewing their setup regularly.
- Consult industry resources: Blogs from ESPs or deliverability platforms often provide helpful guides on DMARC implementation and troubleshooting.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks suggests sharing email headers to aid in diagnosis. This allows for a quick visual inspection of the authentication results for a specific email. They also note that it helps to determine if the DMARC success/failure relates to the visible From: domain or the one used for DKIM signatures, which can be a common point of confusion.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks explains that DMARC reports exist specifically to show what emails Gmail rejected due to DMARC failures. This is the intended purpose of the reporting mechanism. They advise using the reporting system to search for specific failures related to major inbox providers like Gmail.
What the experts say
Email deliverability experts consistently emphasize that DMARC failures, even when authentication seems to pass, are almost always tied to identifier alignment issues or unexpected sending sources. Their insights delve deeper than surface-level checks, focusing on the architectural integrity of email authentication protocols. Experts advocate for systematic analysis of DMARC aggregate reports, which provide the comprehensive data needed to truly understand and rectify complex deliverability problems, differentiating between legitimate configuration gaps and malicious spoofing attempts.
Key opinions
- Focus on identifier alignment: Experts stress that DMARC primarily fails when identifier alignment is not achieved, even if SPF or DKIM pass independently.
- DMARC reports are definitive: The authoritative source for DMARC failure data is the DMARC aggregate report (RUA), which details all authentication outcomes.
- Distinguishing spoofing: Experts use DMARC reports to differentiate between legitimate sending sources with configuration issues and unauthorized parties attempting to forge the domain.
- Beyond visible headers: The domain in the visible 'From' header might not align with the SPF or DKIM authenticated domains, leading to DMARC failure, a subtlety often missed.
- Scalable troubleshooting: For systemic issues, experts recommend DMARC aggregate reports over individual email headers, as reports provide a global view of sending behavior.
Key considerations
- Verify SPF and DKIM setup: Ensure that SPF and DKIM records are correctly published and cover all sending IPs and domains, as this is foundational for DMARC alignment. You can find more information on DMARC, SPF, and DKIM basics.
- Understand DMARC policy: Familiarize yourself with your DMARC policy (p= none, quarantine, reject) as it dictates how recipients handle non-compliant mail. For more, see troubleshooting DMARC reject policies.
- Automated reporting analysis: Use tools or services that automate the analysis of DMARC aggregate reports, as manual parsing of XML files is cumbersome and prone to error.
- Identify all senders: Map out all services that send email on your domain’s behalf, including transactional email providers, marketing platforms, and internal systems, ensuring each is DMARC compliant. Mailgun discusses implementing DMARC effectively.
- Continuous monitoring: Deliverability is dynamic. Regular monitoring of DMARC reports is crucial for ongoing health and to catch new issues quickly.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks suggests sharing email headers to help in understanding a DMARC issue. While not scalable, it can provide immediate context for specific problems. This method allows for a quick assessment of authentication results and can sometimes reveal discrepancies that aren't immediately apparent in aggregate reports.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks firmly states that DMARC reports contain the necessary data for understanding why emails are being rejected for DMARC failures. These reports are precisely what they are designed for. They emphasize that the reports provide granular details, allowing for precise identification of issues.
What the documentation says
Official documentation for DMARC, particularly RFC 7489, provides the foundational understanding for diagnosing failures. It clearly outlines the principles of identifier alignment and how DMARC reports are structured to convey authentication and policy enforcement outcomes. The documentation clarifies that a DMARC 'pass' requires both SPF or DKIM authentication and alignment with the 'From' header domain. Understanding these technical specifications is crucial for anyone troubleshooting DMARC issues or developing email sending best practices.
Key findings
- Alignment definition: Documentation defines DMARC success not just as passing SPF or DKIM checks, but also as achieving 'alignment,' where the 'From' header domain matches the authenticated domain.
- Report structure: DMARC aggregate reports (RUA) are XML-formatted summaries of email authentication results, detailing passes, fails, and the reasons for failure across IP addresses and domains.
- Failure types: Documentation outlines different types of failures, including SPF fail, DKIM fail, and alignment fail, providing specific indicators for diagnosis.
- Policy impact: The DMARC policy (p=none, quarantine, reject) dictates the action recipients take on non-compliant mail, with reports reflecting these actions.
- Forensic reports (RUF): While less common due to privacy concerns, forensic reports (RUF) can provide samples of individual failing messages, offering deep insight into specific failure instances.
Key considerations
- Consult RFC 7489: The DMARC specification (RFC 7489) is the ultimate source for understanding its mechanisms and failure modes.
- Understand report tags: Familiarize yourself with the various tags and values within DMARC reports (e.g., <policy_evaluated>, <auth_results>) to accurately interpret the data. Suped has a list of DMARC tags and meanings.
- Implement DMARC gradually: Start with a 'p=none' policy to gather reports without impacting deliverability, then slowly transition to 'quarantine' or 'reject' as you resolve issues. Safely transition your DMARC policy.
- Aligning domains: Pay close attention to the requirement for the RFC5322.From domain to align with the domain authenticated by SPF or DKIM. This is often the root cause of 'pass but fail' scenarios.
- Use reporting services: The sheer volume and complexity of raw DMARC reports necessitate the use of specialized reporting services to process and visualize the data effectively.
Technical article
Documentation from DMARC.org explains that DMARC is an email authentication protocol that builds on SPF and DKIM to prevent email spoofing and phishing. It provides reporting capabilities to domain owners. They emphasize that DMARC's core function is to allow senders to indicate that their emails are protected by SPF and/or DKIM, and to tell receiving servers what to do if these checks fail.
Technical article
Documentation from RFC 7489 (DMARC) specifies that for DMARC to pass, the domain in the RFC5322.From header must 'align' with the domain used for SPF authentication (RFC5321.MailFrom) or DKIM (d= tag). This alignment is crucial. It defines 'strict' and 'relaxed' alignment modes, which affect how closely these domains must match to achieve DMARC compliance.
Related resources
11 resources
Related pages
How to troubleshoot DMARC failures and their impact on email deliverability?
How to interpret DMARC reports for unrecognized email sending sources and low volume DMARC failures?
Why are some emails failing DMARC checks even with correct SPF and DKIM alignment, and how can I troubleshoot it?
How do I troubleshoot DMARC reject policies and improve email deliverability?
What tools can analyze DMARC reports into an easy-to-read format?
List of DMARC tags and their meanings
Why your emails are getting a 'DMARC verification failed' error
How to safely transition your DMARC policy to quarantine or reject
Understanding and troubleshooting DMARC reports from Google and Yahoo
A simple guide to DMARC, SPF, and DKIM
