Summary
An SPF record showing as neutral indicates that your domain owner has explicitly stated they do not want to assert whether a sending IP address is authorized or not. This is typically due to the use of a ?all qualifier in your SPF TXT record, or in some cases, a fundamental syntax error like a missing v=spf1 tag. While a neutral result doesn't explicitly block emails, it provides no positive authentication signal, which can hinder your email deliverability and increase the likelihood of your emails landing in spam folders.
Key findings
- Explicit indifference: The ?all mechanism explicitly tells receiving servers that the domain owner makes no assertion about the sending IP address, leading to a neutral SPF result.
- Syntax errors: A common cause for an SPF record showing neutral is a syntax error, such as omitting the mandatory v=spf1 tag at the beginning of the record. Without it, the record is not recognized as a valid SPF policy.
- DNS caching: After making changes to your SPF record, it may take time for DNS changes to propagate globally due to caching (Time To Live or TTL settings), causing the record to still appear neutral.
- Domain alignment: SPF checks the return-path (envelope-from) domain, not necessarily the visible From domain. An SPF record published on the wrong domain will still result in a neutral status for the actual sending domain, which can impact DMARC alignment.
Key considerations
- Replace ?all: For production environments, replace ?all with a more restrictive qualifier like ~all (softfail) or -all (hardfail) to provide clear guidance to receiving mail servers. This helps improve trust signals.
- Verify syntax: Always ensure your SPF record starts with v=spf1 and follows the correct SPF syntax. Even small errors can invalidate the entire record. You can refer to official SPF documentation for guidelines.
What email marketers say
Email marketers often encounter SPF neutral results during setup or troubleshooting, especially when moving platforms or refining DNS records. The consensus among marketers points to two primary causes: using the permissive ?all qualifier or subtle syntax errors in the SPF record itself. Many report that while a ?all policy might seem harmless, it offers no real authentication benefit and can lead to emails being treated with suspicion by receiving mail servers, negatively impacting inbox placement.
Key opinions
- Confusion with ?all: Many marketers initially use ?all believing it's the safest option, only to find it leads to a neutral SPF result and doesn't provide the desired authentication.
- Syntax critical: A key finding is that seemingly minor syntax errors, such as a missing v=spf1 prefix, can invalidate the entire SPF record and cause it to show as neutral.
- DNS propagation: Marketers frequently report that delays in DNS propagation can cause frustration, as SPF updates aren't immediately reflected, leading to continued neutral results until TTL expires.
- Impact on deliverability: A neutral SPF doesn't outright fail, but it's widely understood among marketers that it doesn't positively contribute to sender reputation and can make emails more susceptible to spam filtering, contributing to overall email deliverability issues.
Key considerations
- Check all mechanisms: Beyond the ?all qualifier, marketers should review all SPF mechanisms to ensure they correctly authorize all legitimate sending IPs.
- Verify return-path domain: Ensure the SPF record is published for the correct envelope-from domain, which is the one checked during SPF authentication. If the SPF record is not aligned, this can also lead to SPF alignment failures.
- Utilize SPF checkers: Use online SPF checker tools to validate the record's syntax and ensure it's correctly interpreted by receiving servers before and after making changes. These tools can highlight issues such as SPF TempError or DNS resolution issues.
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks explains they initially used a ?all qualifier in their SPF record, causing emails to show as neutral. This configuration, intended to be permissive, inadvertently signaled to receiving mail servers that the domain owner was indifferent about the sending source, rather than providing a clear authorization policy. This often results in a 'neutral' status, which doesn't explicitly pass or fail SPF, but also doesn't provide the strong authentication signal needed for good deliverability.
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks notes that after removing ?all from their SPF TXT record, the SPF value continued to show as neutral upon testing, indicating other factors might be at play. They highlighted the frustration of making a seemingly correct change only to see no immediate positive impact. This experience underscores the complexities of DNS propagation and the need to consider all elements of an SPF record, not just the final qualifier.
What the experts say
Experts universally agree that an SPF record showing neutral indicates either a deliberate, but ill-advised, permissive policy or a fundamental configuration error. The key opinions revolve around the importance of a proper all qualifier (like ~all or -all), the absolute necessity of the v=spf1 prefix, and the impact of DNS caching. They also highlight the criticality of publishing the SPF record for the correct return-path domain to ensure proper authentication.
Key opinions
- Mandatory all qualifier: Even if ?all is removed, an SPF record still requires a final all mechanism (e.g., ~all) to properly define the policy for unlisted IPs.
- Crucial v=spf1 tag: A missing v=spf1 prefix is a critical syntax error that causes the SPF record to be ignored, leading to a neutral result.
- Return-path domain: SPF authentication checks the envelope-from (return-path) domain. Ensuring the SPF record is correctly published for this domain is essential for a successful SPF pass. This is key to SPF alignment.
- DNS caching impacts: Experts consistently point to DNS caching as a reason for delays in SPF record updates, recommending patience or checking TTL values.
Key considerations
- Define a clear policy: Avoid ?all in production. Implement ~all for softfail or -all for hardfail to provide explicit instructions to receiving servers, which aids in building a strong sender reputation.
- Thorough DNS checks: Always verify the entire SPF record syntax, including the presence of v=spf1, and ensure it's on the correct domain and subdomain. Consider the implications of SPF PermError for more insights.
- Monitor propagation: Be aware of your DNS TTL settings and allow sufficient time for changes to propagate. Lowering TTL during troubleshooting can speed up the process.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks (steve589) advises that an 'all statement' (like ~all or -all) is crucial at the end of an SPF record, even if ?all was removed. Without this terminator, the SPF record's evaluation might not conclude properly, potentially leading to a neutral result by default for unlisted IPs. The all mechanism acts as a catch-all, defining the policy for any IP address not explicitly covered by preceding mechanisms.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks (wise_laura) emphasizes that checking for DNS caching issues is vital, as updates to SPF records may not propagate immediately. DNS resolvers worldwide cache records for a period defined by the Time To Live (TTL) setting. Even if the SPF record is correctly updated on the authoritative DNS server, it might take hours for the change to be reflected everywhere, including the mail servers performing the SPF checks.
What the documentation says
Official documentation and technical specifications for SPF consistently define the neutral result as an explicit non-assertion by the domain owner regarding sender authorization. The ?all qualifier is the direct cause of this state. Furthermore, documentation emphasizes the strict syntax requirements, particularly the v=spf1 prefix, without which the entire SPF record is deemed invalid and ignored. DNS caching mechanisms are also highlighted as a factor influencing how quickly SPF changes propagate and are recognized.
Key findings
- Formal definition of neutral: RFC 7208 defines neutral as an explicit statement that the domain owner makes no assertion about the legitimacy of a given sending IP address.
- Syntax validity: Technical specifications mandate that an SPF record must begin with v=spf1. Absence of this tag renders the record invalid for SPF purposes, often leading to a neutral or none result.
- DNS TTL impact: Documentation on DNS propagation confirms that the Time To Live (TTL) value of a record dictates how long resolvers cache it, affecting how quickly SPF changes become effective.
- Policy recommendations: Official guidelines and best practices typically recommend stronger SPF policies, such as ~all or -all, over ?all for improved email security and deliverability, especially when combined with DMARC and DKIM.
Key considerations
- Adhere to RFCs: Always consult RFC 7208 and other relevant RFCs (Request for Comments) to ensure your SPF record strictly complies with the defined standard, preventing unexpected neutral results.
- Understand ?all implications: Recognize that ?all offers no real protection against spoofing. A stronger SPF policy is advised for all domains sending email.
- DNS management: Proper DNS management, including understanding TTL and propagation times, is crucial for timely deployment of SPF changes and effective troubleshooting. This prevents issues such as hidden SPF DNS timeouts at mail providers like Microsoft.
Technical article
RFC 7208 (SPF) states that the neutral result (designated by ?all) means the SPF record explicitly states that the domain does not wish to assert whether the IP address is authorized. This policy is essentially a declaration of indifference, indicating that the domain owner takes no stance on the legitimacy of a given sender. It allows any host to send email for the domain without triggering a 'fail' status, but also without providing positive authentication.
Technical article
DNS documentation on TXT records indicates that for an SPF record to be correctly parsed, it must begin with v=spf1, signifying the SPF version being used. This v= mechanism must be the very first component of the SPF record. Without this mandatory prefix, a receiving mail server's SPF implementation will not recognize the TXT record as an SPF policy, defaulting its evaluation to a 'neutral' or 'none' state because no valid SPF record was found.
Related resources
9 resources
Related pages
Why does SPF pass in headers but not Google Postmaster Tools, and what are domain alignment best practices?
Why does SPF resolution fail with CNAME records and other DNS entries?
What does it mean when SPF is not aligned in a DMARC report and how does it affect deliverability?
What is the full form of SPF in email?
Why your emails fail at Microsoft: the hidden SPF DNS timeout
Solving the SPF alignment puzzle for google workspace alias domains
How to fix the 'SPF unauthorized mail is prohibited' error
Demystifying the SPF TempError in your DMARC reports
A simple guide to DMARC, SPF, and DKIM
Why Your Emails Are Going to Spam in 2024 and How to Fix It
