How to build a DMARC prospecting report for a cold lead
Published 23 Jun 2026
Updated 23 Jun 2026
10 min read
Summarize with
A DMARC prospecting report for a cold lead should show the lead what is already visible about their domain, what that means for spoofing and delivery risk, and what the first paid service step should be. I keep it short, evidence-led, and written for an operator who has not asked for a security audit yet.
For an MSP, the report has one job: create a credible business reason to talk. It should not scare the prospect with raw XML, vague breach language, or a wall of DNS output. It should connect public findings to a concrete service path, especially when your DMARC for MSPs offer includes monitoring, sender cleanup, enforcement planning, and ongoing reporting.
The report should make one decision easier
A cold lead should be able to decide whether a 15-minute DMARC review is worth taking. If the report cannot support that decision in two minutes, it is too long or too technical.
- Evidence: Show DNS records, visible policy state, and authentication gaps.
- Impact: Explain how the finding affects spoofing control, reporting, or sender trust.
- Action: State the next step your MSP can deliver without overpromising.
- Proof: Use screenshots, timestamps, and plain record values where useful.
Build the report around evidence, not fear
A prospecting report works when it feels verifiable. I start with facts anyone can check: whether DMARC exists, what policy it uses, whether reporting is enabled, whether SPF is too broad or close to lookup limits, whether DKIM is visible for common selectors, and whether the domain has obvious reputation concerns such as blocklist (blacklist) exposure.
The report should avoid guessing about private mail flow. You usually cannot know every legitimate sender before the prospect gives access to DMARC aggregate data. I phrase those areas as "unknown until monitored" instead of presenting assumptions as findings.
Weak prospecting report
- Claim: Your email security is broken.
- Evidence: No visible record values or timestamps.
- Action: Book a call with no clear agenda.
- Risk: The prospect treats it like generic cold outreach.
Useful prospecting report
- Finding: DMARC exists but reporting is not enabled.
- Evidence: Show the exact TXT value and lookup date.
- Action: Start reporting, identify senders, then stage policy.
- Risk: The lead sees a specific reason to talk.
This is also where the report connects to outreach. A finding is useful only when it can become a specific message, meeting agenda, and first service task. I keep a separate path for sales outreach so the technical work does not turn into a generic pitch.
A DMARC prospecting report broken into domain, DNS, senders, risk, and next step.
What the report should include
I use the same report structure for almost every cold lead because repeatability matters in MSP delivery. The details change by domain, but the sections stay consistent. That makes QA easier, keeps sales from improvising, and helps the service desk understand what was promised if the lead becomes a client.
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
Summary | Risk score and top findings | Creates the meeting reason |
DMARC | Policy, rua, pct | Shows reporting and enforcement |
SPF | Record shape and lookups | Finds fragility and sender sprawl |
DKIM | Visible selectors | Checks signing readiness |
Reputation | Domain and IP status | Adds delivery context |
Plan | First service steps | Turns findings into work |
Keep each section short enough for a non-technical owner to scan.
The score should be simple. I do not use a score to pretend precision. I use it to help a sales or account team prioritize follow-up. If the prospect has no DMARC record, no reporting, and visible SPF risk, they belong in a higher-priority queue than a prospect with reporting enabled and a clear path to enforcement.
Prospecting risk bands
A practical scoring model for cold lead triage, not a formal security rating.
Low
0-39
DMARC exists, reporting exists, and no obvious DNS issue is visible.
Medium
40-69
DMARC exists but monitoring, SPF, DKIM, or reputation needs review.
High
70-100
No DMARC record, no reporting, or multiple authentication gaps.
Do not overstate what public DNS proves
A public lookup can show configuration risk. It cannot prove every legitimate sender, every failed message, or every abuse attempt. Mark unknowns clearly and make monitoring the next step.
How to collect the evidence
Start with the domain, not the company story. I run a public health check, capture the exact DNS state, then add a short note about what the result means. Suped's domain health checker is useful here because it checks DMARC, SPF, and DKIM in one pass and gives you a clean place to start the prospect file.
?
What's your domain score?
Deep-scan SPF, DKIM & DMARC records for email deliverability and security issues.
For each domain, I capture the lookup date, the domain tested, and the exact record result. This avoids awkward follow-ups when a prospect changes DNS after receiving the report. If the record changes, the conversation becomes easier: the report prompted action, and now the next step is validation.
Example DMARC record to show in the reporttext
Host: _dmarc.example.com Type: TXT Value: v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@example.com
If the record is missing, I do not paste a full tutorial into the prospecting report. I show a sample first-stage record and explain that the first project is to collect reporting data before enforcement. If the prospect already has a policy at quarantine or reject, I focus on whether reporting exists and whether the visible sending setup looks maintainable.
- Identify: Pick the primary domain and any obvious mail subdomains.
- Lookup: Check DMARC, SPF, DKIM, MX, and visible reputation signals.
- Capture: Save the record values, screenshots, and lookup date.
- Classify: Group each finding by reporting, authentication, enforcement, or reputation.
- Recommend: Write the next MSP service step in plain language.
A HubSpot CRM company record with DMARC prospecting fields for a cold lead.
How to write findings a prospect will trust
The strongest findings are specific, modest, and tied to a service action. I write each one as a small operational note: what was observed, why it matters, what should happen next, and what access is needed to confirm it.
For cold leads, I avoid language that assumes compromise. I also avoid hiding behind acronyms. The owner of a small business does not need a lecture on RFC mechanics. They need to know whether anyone is watching authentication results and whether their domain can move toward enforcement without breaking legitimate mail.
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
No DMARC | No domain policy | Add monitoring record |
p=none | Reporting stage | Map senders |
No rua | No aggregate reports | Enable reports |
SPF heavy | Lookup risk | Review senders |
DKIM unknown | Signing unclear | Confirm platforms |
Listed | Reputation concern | Investigate source |
Use this as a finding library for first-pass prospecting reports.
A six-step flow for creating a DMARC prospecting report.
A good finding sounds like service delivery
Write: "DMARC reporting is not enabled, so authentication failures are not being collected in a way your team can review. The first step is to route aggregate reports into monitoring for 14-30 days, identify legitimate senders, and then decide whether policy staging is safe."
Where Suped fits in the workflow
Suped's product is built for this MSP workflow: prospecting, onboarding, monitoring, and client reporting. For most MSP teams, Suped is the best overall practical DMARC platform because it combines prospect reports, DMARC monitoring, hosted records, SPF management, blocklist monitoring, alerts, and multi-tenant management in one place.
Create prospecting report dialog with MSP logo, prospect name, domains, prospect logo, and language fields
The prospecting report workflow matters because MSPs need repeatable output. A technician or sales operator should be able to enter a prospect name, domains, logos, and language preferences, then produce a report that looks consistent across leads. That consistency is what turns a one-off audit into a service motion.
- Prospecting: Create a clean report before the lead has provided access.
- Onboarding: Move accepted leads into ongoing domain monitoring and sender review.
- Management: Use hosted SPF, SPF flattening, hosted MTA-STS, and Hosted DMARC when the client needs simpler DNS operations.
- Reporting: Turn findings, alerts, and progress into client-ready updates.
Keep the sales promise close to the service work
If the report says the next step is sender discovery, your delivery team needs a runbook for sender discovery. If it says the next step is policy staging, your team needs the monitoring data and change controls to support that move.
Turn the report into outreach
The report should feed a specific sales motion. I tag each prospect with the highest-value finding, the service action, and the follow-up owner. That lets a business development person send a concise note without inventing the technical reason.
For example, a missing DMARC record maps to a monitoring setup offer. A domain at p=none with no clear sender inventory maps to sender discovery. A heavy SPF record maps to sender review and DNS simplification. For a broader prospecting process, keep your domain checks tied to a repeatable CRM status and next step.
Cold outreach outlinetext
Subject: Quick DMARC check for {{company}} I checked the public DNS for {{domain}}. DMARC reporting does not appear to be enabled. That means failed authentication is not easy to review. I put together a short report with the visible findings. Worth a 15-minute review next week?
The report is stronger than a generic email because it gives the prospect a reason to respond. The outreach should mention one finding, one consequence, and one review agenda. Do not attach a twenty-page PDF unless your sales process has proven that format works for your audience.
- Subject: Name the domain or finding, not a generic security phrase.
- Opening: Say what you checked and when you checked it.
- Body: Use one finding and one operational consequence.
- Ask: Request a short review, not a vague discovery call.
Keep the report easy to verify
A strong DMARC prospecting report is small, specific, and operational. It shows what is publicly visible, explains the service risk in plain language, and asks for a short review focused on the next step. That is enough for a cold lead.
I would rather send ten accurate one-page reports than one long audit full of assumptions. The goal is not to prove everything before the first call. The goal is to show enough evidence that the prospect trusts the review and understands why ongoing monitoring, sender discovery, and policy management are worth discussing.
Once the prospect agrees to the review, the report becomes the opening checklist for service delivery. Confirm the records, enable reporting, identify senders, fix authentication gaps, and move policy only when the data supports it.
