Summary
The GPT v2 dashboard occasionally displays SPF/DKIM errors and TLS issues even when other data sources, like DMARC reports, indicate proper authentication. This discrepancy often arises from email forwarding by other providers, such as Yahoo and Apple, which can break SPF alignment without ARC (Authenticated Received Chain) support. Additionally, a small volume of emails forwarded from random IPs can lead to DKIM failures due to stripped headers. These authentication anomalies, even when representing a minor percentage of overall traffic, might disproportionately influence Gmail's perception of a domain's sending legitimacy.
Key findings
- Forwarding impact: Email forwarding by third-party providers (e.g., Yahoo, Apple) often breaks SPF authentication. This occurs because the message is re-sent from a new IP address, invalidating the original SPF record unless ARC is used. These instances are captured in DMARC reports but can present as failures in tools like Google Postmaster Tools (GPT).
- DKIM header stripping: Some forwarding mechanisms or intermediary servers may strip or modify email headers, causing DKIM authentication to fail. Even a small number of such failures can register as issues in aggregate reports.
- GPT v2 discrepancies: The GPT v2 dashboard may inaccurately report SPF/DKIM and TLS issues compared to GPT v1 or direct DMARC reports. This suggests potential bugs or different data interpretation methods within the new Postmaster Tools interface.
- Domain vs. subdomain reporting: GPT v2 primarily reports on the organizational domain level, which means authentication failures on a subdomain might be aggregated and impact the overall domain's reported compliance. This can lead to confusion if sending is exclusively via a subdomain.
Key considerations
- Verify DMARC reports: Always cross-reference GPT data with your own DMARC aggregate reports. These reports provide granular detail on authentication results, showing specific sources and reasons for failures, including forwarded mail. This can help you understand why your emails are receiving DMARC verification failed errors.
- Subdomain monitoring: If you are sending from subdomains, be aware that GPT v2's primary focus on the organizational domain level might combine data from various sources, making it harder to isolate issues to specific sending streams. This is important when investigating why GPT shows authentication failures.
- Interpret low-volume failures: A minimal percentage of authentication failures due to forwarding or random IPs is unlikely to significantly impact your domain's reputation or deliverability. The system is designed to handle some noise. For more on this, the OpenAI Developer Community discusses DMARC handling.
- Report inconsistencies: If you consistently observe major discrepancies between GPT v2 and other reliable sources, consider reporting these as potential bugs to Google.
What email marketers say
Email marketers often face challenges in reconciling conflicting data from different deliverability monitoring tools. When Google Postmaster Tools v2 reports SPF/DKIM errors that aren't visible elsewhere, it leads to confusion and concern. Marketers frequently attribute these discrepancies to potential bugs within the GPT v2 platform or unique interpretations of email authentication by Google's systems, especially concerning forwarded mail and domain-level aggregation. They generally advise prioritizing consistent data from other reliable sources if Postmaster Tools appears to be an outlier.
Key opinions
- Buggy dashboard: Many marketers suspect that the GPT v2 compliance dashboard contains bugs or is still undergoing refinement. They suggest that its data may not always be reliable or consistent with other tools.
- Forwarding confusion: There's a shared understanding that email forwarding (e.g., from Yahoo or Apple to Gmail) can cause SPF failures, which might be disproportionately highlighted by GPT v2. Marketers often question whether these forwarded failures truly impact deliverability.
- Subdomain reporting: The aggregation of data at the organizational domain level in GPT v2, rather than specific subdomains, can obscure the true source of authentication issues for marketers using multiple sending domains.
- Prioritize consistent data: If other DMARC reports and monitoring tools show a healthy authentication status, marketers tend to view GPT v2's conflicting reports with skepticism, prioritizing the more consistent data points.
Key considerations
- Cross-validation: Always cross-reference GPT v2 data with DMARC reports and other monitoring services. This helps in understanding why GPT data might be glitchy or inconsistent.
- Focus on actionable insights: If the reported failures are minimal and stem from known forwarding scenarios, marketers typically do not treat them as critical issues requiring immediate action. For more information, see how email export issues are discussed.
- Monitor broader trends: Pay attention to significant dips or widespread failures across multiple authentication types in GPT v2, as these may indicate genuine problems. Isolated anomalies can often be disregarded, especially if gmail shows DKIM failing falsely.
- Reporting bugs: Marketers are encouraged to report observed inconsistencies or suspected bugs directly to Google to contribute to the platform's improvement.
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks indicates that the GPT v2 compliance dashboard seems to require further development, suggesting that its reporting on forwarded or unusual mail may be confusing but likely won't result in penalties for the client.
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks states that version 2 of the Postmaster Tools appears to be buggy and suggests viewing its data with caution, especially if other authentication data sources show positive results.
What the experts say
Email deliverability experts highlight that while Google Postmaster Tools provides valuable insights, its interpretation of authentication data, especially in newer versions like v2, can sometimes be misleading. They emphasize the complexity of email authentication, where factors like forwarding, subdomain aggregation, and minute traffic anomalies can create statistical noise. Experts often recommend a multi-faceted approach to monitoring, combining GPT data with comprehensive DMARC reports to get a clearer, more accurate picture of a domain's authentication health and avoid misinterpreting minor fluctuations as critical issues.
Key opinions
- Postmaster Tools bugs: Experts frequently observe and acknowledge that Google Postmaster Tools, particularly newer iterations, can exhibit bugs or inconsistencies in reporting SPF and DKIM authentication statuses.
- Domain level reporting: GPT v2's tendency to report at the organizational domain level can obscure issues stemming from specific subdomains or misattribute failures from legitimate forwarding chains.
- Low percentage tolerance: Most experts agree that a low percentage of SPF/DKIM failures due to known forwarding scenarios or minor, random anomalies should not significantly impact deliverability or domain reputation.
- Importance of DMARC visibility: Accessing and analyzing DMARC aggregate reports is crucial for understanding the true sources of authentication failures, including those from legitimate forwarding. This helps clarify why DMARC success rates might fluctuate.
Key considerations
- Verify sending patterns: Confirm that all legitimate sending streams are properly authenticated, especially when using subdomains. Ensure that SPF and DKIM failures are not due to incorrect setup.
- Distinguish between legitimate and malicious failures: Use DMARC data to differentiate between failures caused by forwarding (often legitimate) and those indicating unauthorized sending (malicious), which require immediate attention.
- Report data anomalies: Actively report significant or persistent discrepancies observed in GPT v2 to Google. This feedback is vital for the improvement and accuracy of their tools.
- Understand tool limitations: Recognize that Postmaster Tools provides an aggregate view and may not perfectly reflect every nuance of email authentication for every message. As OpenAI's community discusses DMARC handling, even advanced AI models can misinterpret DMARC data.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks experiences similar SPF errors for their own domain, EmailKarma, despite having valid SPF/DKIM records. This suggests that the issue might indeed be a bug within the GPT v2 system itself rather than a misconfiguration on the sender's part.
Expert view
Expert from SpamResource highlights that discrepancies in authentication reports can arise when monitoring tools aggregate data at a higher level, like the organizational domain, rather than distinct sending subdomains. This can lead to a skewed perception of overall compliance.
What the documentation says
Official email authentication documentation provides a foundational understanding of how SPF, DKIM, and DMARC work, including their vulnerabilities to common email behaviors like forwarding. These documents explain why SPF typically breaks upon forwarding without ARC, and how DKIM relies on header integrity. While not directly addressing specific Postmaster Tools glitches, the documentation clarifies the underlying technical reasons for reported authentication failures, particularly those related to mail relays and transformations that can invalidate original authentication signatures. This helps in understanding the expected behavior of these protocols.
Key findings
- SPF and forwarding: SPF checks the IP address of the sending server against a published record. When an email is forwarded, the forwarding server's IP becomes the new sender, causing the original SPF check to fail unless ARC is utilized.
- DKIM and header integrity: DKIM uses cryptographic signatures based on email headers and sometimes the body. Any modification to the signed headers or body during transit will invalidate the DKIM signature, leading to a failure.
- DMARC reporting: DMARC reports provide aggregate data on authentication results, including the percentage of SPF and DKIM passes/fails, and can often show the source IPs that cause these failures, distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate traffic.
- ARC protocol: The Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) is designed to preserve authentication results across mail forwarders and relays, preventing SPF and DKIM failures for legitimate forwarded emails. Its absence often explains failures in forwarded mail.
Key considerations
- Understand email flow: A deep understanding of how emails travel through various servers and how forwarding affects authentication protocols is essential. This can help decipher the basics of DMARC, SPF, and DKIM.
- Consult RFCs: Refer to relevant RFC documents (e.g., RFC 7208 for SPF, RFC 6376 for DKIM, RFC 7489 for DMARC) for authoritative definitions of how these protocols should behave, particularly in complex scenarios like forwarding.
- Leverage DMARC insights: Use DMARC aggregate reports as your primary source of truth, as they offer the most comprehensive view of authentication results across all receivers, including granular details on forwarding sources. These reports are invaluable for understanding Google Postmaster Tools v2.
- Implement ARC if possible: While senders don't control how recipients forward mail, understanding ARC helps explain why some legitimate forwarded mail passes authentication while others do not.
Technical article
Documentation from RFC 7208 (SPF) explains that SPF authentication relies on the sending IP address being authorized in the SPF record of the domain in the MAIL FROM identity. If an email is forwarded through an intermediary server, the IP address changes, leading to an SPF 'fail' or 'softfail' unless specific mechanisms are in place.
Technical article
Documentation from RFC 6376 (DKIM) states that DKIM signatures are generated over specific email headers and parts of the body. Any alteration to these signed components during transit, whether intentional or accidental, will cause the DKIM signature verification to fail.
Related resources
2 resources
Related pages
Why is Google Postmaster Tools (GPT) showing incorrect SPF and DKIM authentication rates?
Why is Google Postmaster Tools (GPT) data glitchy and inconsistent?
Why do SPF and DKIM failures sometimes occur despite correct setup?
A simple guide to DMARC, SPF, and DKIM
Understanding and troubleshooting DMARC reports from Google and Yahoo
Ultimate guide to Google Postmaster Tools V2
Why does Gmail show DKIM failing when it actually passes?
Why is GPT showing DKIM/DMARC authentication failures despite correct DNS records?
