Summary
GPT v2 might show SPF/DKIM errors due to it being new and potentially buggy, the dashboard itself needing work, differing SPF/DKIM validation methods (especially concerning forwarded emails), data delays, domain-level vs subdomain reporting, aggressive validation thresholds, complex DMARC validation interpretations, and inherent inaccuracies in deliverability tools that rely on estimation and distinct algorithms. SPF failures are common with forwarding since the forwarder typically lacks authorization. Also, DKIM signatures can fail if headers are stripped. The bottom line, be cautious in using this dashboard and compare to other sources of truth.
Key findings
- Dashboard Quality: GPT v2 compliance dashboard may be buggy and confusing, needing further development.
- Validation Method Differences: Different tools may employ various SPF/DKIM validation methods impacting results, with forwarding being a key factor.
- Reporting Granularity: GPT v2's domain-level reporting compared to subdomain-level views in other systems can result in differing insights.
- Threshold Sensitivity: GPT v2 might utilize stricter validation thresholds triggering more error flags.
- Forwarding Impact: SPF validation often fails with forwarded emails due to authorization discrepancies.
- Inherent Data Limitations: Deliverability tools are based on estimations, and may not always be 100% accurate.
- Data Delays: Google Postmaster Tools may have data delays compared to realtime tools.
Key considerations
- Data Verification: Exercise caution when interpreting GPT v2 data; cross-reference it with other established sources.
- Subdomain Awareness: Acknowledge the impact of domain-level versus subdomain-level reporting.
- Forwarding Management: Implement strategies to reduce negative impact of email forwarding.
- Algorithm Awareness: Be mindful of the algorithm and interpretational variations.
What email marketers say
8 marketer opinions
GPT v2 might show SPF/DKIM errors that other sources don't due to it being new and potentially buggy, using different validation methods (especially for forwarded emails), reporting on a domain level instead of subdomain, having more aggressive thresholds, and variations in DMARC validation interpretations. SPF failures are common with forwarding. Some issues can be domain level or subdomain level and so may not impact the client. Reporting bugs helps improve the tool.
Key opinions
- GPT v2 Bugginess: GPT v2 is new and may contain bugs causing discrepancies.
- Validation Differences: GPT v2 might use different SPF/DKIM validation methods, especially for forwarded emails.
- Reporting Level: GPT v2 could report domain-level issues, while other sources focus on subdomains.
- Aggressive Thresholds: GPT v2 may have more aggressive validation thresholds than other systems.
- Forwarding Issues: SPF often fails on forwarded emails as the forwarder isn't authorized for the sender's domain.
- Validation complexitiy: Variations exist in the interpretation of DMARC validation across providers.
Key considerations
- Data Reliability: Take GPT v2 data with caution, especially if contradictory to more established tools.
- Forwarding Impact: Analyze how email forwarding impacts SPF/DKIM results in GPT v2.
- Reporting Scope: Consider whether the issues are domain-wide or limited to specific subdomains.
- Bug Reporting: Report any suspected bugs in GPT v2 to Google.
- Investigate forwarders: Investigate and mitigate forwarding issues.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Mailgun answers that SPF checks the domain of the envelope MAIL FROM address against the sending IP address. When messages are forwarded, the sending server is usually not authorized to send on behalf of the MAIL FROM domain, and the SPF check will fail.
28 Dec 2021 - Mailgun
Marketer view
Email marketer from LinkedIn answers that any bugs found within GPT should be reported, so that they can resolve them.
29 Oct 2024 - LinkedIn
What the experts say
4 expert opinions
GPT v2's dashboard may show SPF/DKIM errors due to bugs, the dashboard needing work, forwarded emails causing SPF failures (as the forwarder isn't authorized), and inherent inaccuracies in deliverability tools relying on estimations and different algorithms. The dashboard can also be confusing.
Key opinions
- Dashboard Issues: GPT compliance dashboard needs improvement and can be confusing.
- Potential Bugs: GPT may have bugs causing false SPF errors, even with valid SPF/DKIM.
- SPF and Forwarding: SPF failures are common when emails are forwarded, as the forwarder is often not authorized to send on behalf of the original domain.
- Inherent Inaccuracy: Deliverability tools like GPT make educated guesses and aren't 100% accurate, leading to discrepancies.
Key considerations
- Dashboard Reliability: Do not fully rely on the GPT compliance dashboard as it might be misleading.
- Forwarding Impact: Understand how email forwarding affects SPF results and overall deliverability.
- Algorithm Differences: Be aware that deliverability tools use different algorithms, causing potentially conflicting results.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks shares the GPT compliance dashboard needs work and doesn't think the client will get punished for forwarded/weird mail failing, suggesting the dashboard can be confusing.
21 Sep 2021 - Email Geeks
Expert view
Expert from Word to the Wise (Laura Atkins) explains that deliverability tools (like GPT) have to make educated guesses about the data they are working with. They are never 100% accurate, and use different algorithms which can mean discrepancies.
5 Aug 2021 - Word to the Wise
What the documentation says
4 technical articles
GPT v2 might show SPF/DKIM errors due to data delays in Google Postmaster Tools, SPF failing on forwarded emails (as the IP doesn't match), DMARC reporting being domain-based (not subdomain), and DKIM signatures failing if headers are stripped during forwarding.
Key findings
- Data Delays: Google Postmaster Tools data is subject to delays, leading to discrepancies.
- SPF Forwarding Issues: SPF fails when emails are forwarded because the IP address no longer matches the SPF record.
- DMARC Domain Reporting: DMARC reporting is domain-based, not subdomain-based, affecting visibility.
- DKIM Header Stripping: DKIM signatures fail if email headers are stripped or modified during forwarding.
Key considerations
- Time Discrepancies: Account for potential data delays when comparing GPT v2 with other real-time sources.
- Forwarding Mitigation: Address SPF failures due to forwarding through solutions like ARC.
- Domain vs Subdomain: Understand the limitations of domain-based DMARC reporting.
- Header Preservation: Ensure email headers are preserved during forwarding to maintain DKIM validity.
Technical article
Documentation from dmarc.org explains that SPF is prone to failing when emails are forwarded, because the originating IP address no longer matches the SPF record of the sending domain.
2 Feb 2025 - dmarc.org
Technical article
Documentation from Google explains that Google Postmaster Tools data is subject to delays. Discrepancies might arise if comparing to real-time data from other sources.
28 Jun 2022 - Google Support
Against which domain is SPF checked?
Are SPF, DKIM, and DMARC as important in B2B as in B2C email marketing?
Do SPF and DKIM records need to be aligned for all email service providers?
How do SPF, DKIM, and DMARC email authentication standards work?
What are SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, and when are they needed?
