Answering Your Webinar Questions: Email Security — From The Desk Of DMARCReport

In our recent webinar titled “From Setup to Success: Secure Your Emails with DMARCReport,” we explored essential aspects of email security, with a deep dive into authentication protocols and best practices. The session was rich in content and attracted many participants; yet, we couldn’t cover all questions during the live Q&A. In this post, DMARCReport brings you a curated selection of those unanswered — but highly relevant — questions along with comprehensive, practical answers. Whether you are new to DMARC or refining your email security posture, this guide is crafted to steer you confidently forward.

1. How can an email still reach a recipient even when DMARC is configured with p=reject?

When your domain’s DMARC policy is set to p=reject, receiving mail servers will only deliver emails that pass authentication checks (SPF or DKIM) and whose “From” address domain aligns properly — only those should land in the inbox. 

Thus, legitimate emails from correctly configured sending sources (with proper SPF and DKIM) will continue to be delivered even under p=reject. If you observe legitimate delivery despite p=reject, it simply means that those emails are authenticated and aligned correctly.

On the flip side — if an email fails SPF and DKIM, or the domain alignment fails — then with a strict p=reject policy, it should be blocked. That’s why a careful and correct setup of all legitimate sending sources (and updating them when you add new ones) is essential before moving to a reject policy.

2. In DMARCReport dashboard, I see emails from suspicious domains failing DMARC/SPF — but they still get delivered. Should I migrate from p=none to a stricter policy?

Yes — that’s often a sign that a shift is overdue. Many organizations begin with p=none: this mode is useful for monitoring how your domain is used, collecting data without interfering with mail flow. 

However, p=none does not enforce any protection: emails failing DMARC will still be delivered. If you have already verified that all legitimate sending sources pass SPF and DKIM, upgrading to p=quarantine — and eventually p=reject — significantly reduces the chance of phishing or spoofing attacks using your domain. 

Before switching, double-check every source (mail servers, marketing tools, contact-form scripts, third-party senders) to ensure they are properly authenticated — to avoid unintentionally blocking valid emails.

3. Why do many small and medium-sized businesses choose p=none — and what does that mean for their security?

For many small and medium businesses (SMBs), starting with p=none is appealing because it allows them to observe how their domain is used, collect DMARC reports, and avoid risking legitimate email delivery breaks. This cautious approach helps gather data about all sending sources, including legitimate third-party services that may use the domain. 

However, this “monitoring only” approach doesn’t give the full benefits of DMARC. Without active enforcement (quarantine or reject), your domain remains vulnerable to spoofing and phishing: attackers can send fraudulent emails pretending to be from you, and they may still reach recipients. 

To truly safeguard your domain — and your brand reputation — an SMB should treat DMARC not as a checkbox, but as an evolving process: review reports, clean up misconfigurations, phase out unused or unauthorized senders, and gradually enforce stricter policies.

4. Is there a danger in treating DMARC as just a compliance checkbox rather than a proactive security tool?

Absolutely. The real value of DMARC — when used right — is in preventing abuse of your domain, not just checking a box. If organizations merely publish a DMARC record with p=none, collect some reports, and then forget about it — they miss the fundamental purpose: protecting against domain spoofing, phishing, and brand abuse. 

Moreover, if no one monitors or acts on the reports, unauthorized senders can quietly continue using your domain, and malicious campaigns may go unnoticed. Treating DMARC as a one-time compliance step undermines its potential.

DMARCReport emphasizes: think of DMARC as a living process. Regularly analyze reports, enforce stricter policies when appropriate, and remain vigilant about new sending sources, changes in infrastructure, or third-party integrations.

5. What are the best practices to avoid legitimate emails landing in spam, especially for customer communications?

Authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) is important — but not a magic bullet. Even with perfect setup, other factors can push your legitimate emails into spam folders. 

Key practices to improve deliverability:

• Use correct and enforced SPF, DKIM, and DMARC policies so your domain is trusted.
• Maintain a clean email list — avoid outdated or unengaged recipients.
• Limit use of third-party URLs or suspicious content (spam-like formatting, many links).
• Encourage recipient engagement (opens, clicks, replies) — positive engagement improves sender reputation over time.
• Monitor deliverability metrics and feedback loops; adjust behaviour accordingly (e.g. frequency of sending, content quality, segmentation).

Combining good authentication with behavioral and content hygiene gives the best chance your emails reach the inbox.

6. Beyond MX records, what configurations affect spam filtering — and how can DMARCReport help?

MX records control where inbound email lands — but they don’t influence spam filters directly. Instead, configurations that improve email legitimacy and domain reputation matter more. 

Important configurations and practices:

• Enforce SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, ensuring that all legitimate sending sources are covered.
• Keep sender reputation high — avoid spammy content, over-linking, or misleading subject lines; maintain consistent sending patterns.
• Use clean recipient lists, avoid mailing to unverified or stale addresses.
• Monitor delivery history, bounce rates, engagement metrics, and unsubscribe/complaint rates.
• For larger organizations: use email headers and feedback loops (where supported) to track deliverability issues.

With DMARCReport (or similar tools), you get aggregated reports and insights about your email sources — helping you spot misconfigurations, unauthorized senders, or abnormal sending patterns before they harm your deliverability or reputation.

7. How does DMARCReport help diagnose issues with authentication records?

DMARCReport (like other mature DMARC-reporting platforms) offers a suite of capabilities to help you monitor, detect, and fix issues:

• Parses aggregate DMARC reports to show which sources are sending on behalf of your domain.
• Highlights senders failing SPF or DKIM, or those whose domain alignment is invalid.
• Alerts you to unauthorized or suspicious senders — helping you detect potential spoofing or misuse.
• Assists in tracking changes over time, visualizing trends, and spotting anomalous spikes (e.g. sudden increase in failed authentication).
• Helps manage subdomains or multiple sending domains, making sure all relevant sources are covered.

By using such features, you proactively handle configuration drift, unapproved senders, and compliance gaps — rather than reacting only after an incident.

8. Can DMARCReport be used alongside other services or providers for monitoring and validation?

Yes — you can integrate DMARCReport with other tools or services, by including its rua address (or addresses) in your DMARC DNS record alongside other providers. 

Many organizations use multiple monitoring services simultaneously (for redundancy or comparative analysis). DMARC allows multiple rua addresses, letting you funnel aggregate reports to different analyzers.

This flexibility makes it possible to benefit from different platforms’ strengths — whether reporting clarity, alerting, analytics, or integration with internal systems — without interfering with each other.

9. What is the value of BIMI for small companies — and how does it relate to DMARC?

BIMI (Brand Indicators for Message Identification) brings a branding and trust enhancement layer to email — by allowing companies to display their logo next to authenticated emails in supporting inboxes (e.g. Gmail, Yahoo). 

For small companies, BIMI offers several benefits:

• Enhanced brand recognition and credibility in recipients’ inboxes.
• Increased trust — recipients are more likely to open emails that visibly show a brand logo, improving open rates and engagement.
• It’s an additional signal that the email is legitimate, which may improve deliverability and reduce likelihood of being marked as phishing or spam (especially useful for marketing, newsletters, or customer communications).

However, to use BIMI, your domain must already be DMARC-compliant (typically with a restrictive policy), which makes a strong DMARC setup a prerequisite.

10. Is it okay to hide the rua (reporting) address using a distribution list or external contact?

While technically possible — by forwarding DMARC reports from a central mailbox or distribution list — this method carries risks. According to best practice, it’s better to include the actual rua address(es) directly in your DMARC record. Automatically forwarding or using DLs can sometimes corrupt report formatting, making them difficult (or impossible) for analyzers to parse. 

If you want multiple parties to receive reports, include up to two rua addresses in the DMARC record — or use reporting-capable mailboxes that distribute internally. This ensures the integrity and completeness of data, and avoids report loss or parsing issues.

11. What about forwarded emails — and the role of ARC (Authenticated Received Chain) when using DMARC?

Forwarding introduces complexity: when an email gets forwarded (e.g. from a company alias to a personal inbox), the original authentication results (SPF or DKIM) may get lost — which can lead to failures under strict DMARC enforcement. Because forwarding often breaks SPF or invalidates DKIM alignment, such emails may fail DMARC checks at the final delivery server. 

ARC was designed to address exactly that: it lets intermediary servers attach a chain of authentication results so that forwarding does not necessarily break trust.

However, ARC is managed by the receiving servers and intermediaries (e.g. forwarding services, mailing-list software), not by the sender. Therefore, to minimize issues:

• Ensure DKIM is used and aligned properly when sending;
• Be aware of forwarding paths, mailing aliases, or automated forwarding rules;
• Where possible, avoid forwarding workflows that break authentication; or use services that support ARC.

DMARCReport encourages careful consideration of forwarding when designing your email architecture — especially if you rely on aliases or external mailing lists.

12. If I already have SPF, DKIM, and DMARC in place, why do I still need DMARCReport (or equivalent monitoring service)?

Because having SPF, DKIM, and DMARC records is only the first step. Without ongoing monitoring and analysis, you cannot know whether:

• unauthorized senders are using your domain;
• legitimate sending sources have changed or broken configuration;
• emails are being forged, forwarded, or manipulated;
• some subsets of emails (e.g. subdomains, third-party services, contact-form sends) are bypassing authentication;
• deliverability or alignment issues are creeping in.

By using DMARCReport, you get detailed reports, alerts, and insights — so you can detect misconfigurations, unauthorized usage, or abuse before they escalate into phishing campaigns or brand-compromising incidents. 

Moreover, as your organization scales — adding more senders, services, marketing tools, and domains — manual tracking becomes impractical. Automated monitoring helps you maintain security and compliance with minimal overhead.

13. Should I add DKIM records even for emails sent from a website contact form?

Yes — absolutely. Any email that is sent using your domain — even if it originates from a web server (e.g. contact form, notifications, automated messages) — should be signed with DKIM. This ensures the email is cryptographically tied to your domain, maintaining integrity and authenticity. 

If DKIM is omitted, such emails risk failing authentication checks under strict DMARC policies — which could lead to them being rejected or quarantined, especially if forwarded or re-sent.

As your email infrastructure grows — including web-forms, third-party services, mailers, and automation tools — make it a rule to include DKIM + SPF + DMARC for all sources. This ensures consistent delivery, integrity, and security across the board.

Conclusion — Treat Email Security as a Journey, Not a One-Time Setup

At DMARCReport, we believe effective email security is not a “set and forget” affair — it’s an ongoing process.
Publishing SPF, DKIM, and DMARC records is a necessary first step; but the real protection comes from monitoring, analysis, and active management.

Use reporting tools to track every sender, every source, every anomaly. Don’t settle for p=none indefinitely: once legitimate sources are verified, move toward stricter policies (p=quarantine, then p=reject) to defend your domain against spoofing and phishing.

Regularly audit your infrastructure — every web form, every marketing tool, every third-party — and make sure they comply with authentication. Monitor deliverability metrics, engagement, reputation, and feedback loops.

And, where appropriate, build in extra layers — such as forwarding-aware strategies, proper alias and subdomain handling, and branding signals like BIMI — to not only secure your emails but also improve trust and deliverability.

If you have further questions or need help setting up or analyzing your DMARC configuration, DMARCReport is always ready to guide you. Stay vigilant, stay protected — and let your domain speak with authenticity.