How to fix SPF failure when return path and sender from addresses are different in SFMC?

Summary

SPF failures in SFMC when the Return-Path and Sender From addresses differ primarily arise from the Return-Path domain's SPF record not authorizing SFMC's sending servers. Utilizing a separate subdomain for the Return-Path is a common and recommended practice to manage bounces and sender reputation effectively. DMARC alignment necessitates either SPF or DKIM to pass, with misalignment often causing DMARC failures. Best practices encompass configuring a custom Return-Path domain, ensuring its SPF record includes SFMC (e.g., 'include:cust-spf.exacttarget.com'), and using validation tools to confirm correct SPF setup. Crucially, a distinct Return-Path prevents bounce-related mailbombing. The 5321.from address might default to ExactTarget, impacting visibility of SPF data, while a dedicated bounce domain and correct SPF and DKIM setup will overall improve deliverability.

Key findings

  • SPF Authentication Check: SPF authentication verifies the sending IP's authorization for the Return-Path domain.
  • Return-Path Necessity: A separate Return-Path is critical for managing bounces and feedback loops, preventing abuse on sender's From address.
  • DMARC Alignment Requirement: DMARC requires either SPF or DKIM alignment; misalignment causes DMARC failures.
  • SFMC SPF inclusion: The most common failure point: Failure to include SFMC in the Return-Path SPF record is a common pitfall.
  • 5321.from: The 5321.from address could be an ExactTarget address, limiting user data access.

Key considerations

  • Custom Return-Path Management: Implement an SPF record for the custom bounce.em.mybrand.com domain that includes SFMC.
  • Always Include SFMC: Ensure the SPF record includes SFMC when utilizing third-party senders for SFMC.
  • Validate SPF Records: Validate records using external SPF Record testing tools.
  • SAP benefits: A Sender Authentication Package (SAP) helps build sender reputation.
  • include: Syntax: Use the include: syntax to reference SFMC's SPF records.

What email marketers say
8Marketer opinions

SPF failures in SFMC often arise when the Return-Path (bounce address) domain differs from the 'From' address domain and the SPF record for the Return-Path domain doesn't authorize the sending servers, particularly SFMC's servers. DMARC alignment requires SPF or DKIM to pass, and misalignment leads to DMARC failures. Best practices involve setting up a custom Return-Path domain, ensuring its SPF record includes SFMC (e.g., 'include:cust-spf.exacttarget.com'), and validating SPF configurations with testing tools.

Key opinions

  • SPF Hard Fail: SPF hard fails (-all) indicate rejection if the sending server isn't in the SPF record, but enforcement varies.
  • DMARC Alignment: DMARC requires either SPF or DKIM alignment; the 'From' domain must match the authenticating domain.
  • Return-Path SPF: The SPF record for the Return-Path domain must authorize sending servers, including third-party platforms like SFMC.
  • SFMC Inclusion: Failing to include SFMC in the Return-Path SPF record is a common pitfall leading to SPF failures.

Key considerations

  • Custom Return-Path: Setting up a custom Return-Path domain gives greater control over SPF records and sender reputation.
  • SFMC Documentation: Consult SFMC's documentation for specific SPF setup instructions and delegation methods.
  • SPF Record Validation: Regularly test and validate SPF records using available tools to ensure proper configuration.
  • DMARC Impact: SPF failures, particularly when the Return-Path and From addresses have different domains, are a common cause of DMARC failures.
Marketer view

Email marketer from Stack Overflow highlights that SPF 'hard fail' (-all) means that if the sending server isn't listed in your SPF record, the email should be rejected. However, many mail servers don't follow this strictly, and may still accept the email.

May 2021 - Stack Overflow
Marketer view

Email marketer from Mailjet shares that to resolve SPF failures, you must ensure the SPF record for the Return-Path domain includes all authorized sending sources, including third-party email platforms like SFMC. This might involve adding 'include:cust-spf.exacttarget.com' to your SPF record.

December 2024 - Mailjet
Marketer view

Email marketer from Litmus explains that DMARC failures often occur when SPF fails to align. This happens when the domain in the 'From' address does not match the domain that SPF is authenticating (the Return-Path domain). Ensure either SPF or DKIM authenticates and aligns for DMARC to pass.

October 2023 - Litmus
Marketer view

Email marketer from Reddit user explains that a common setup involves using a separate subdomain for the Return-Path (e.g., bounce.example.com) to handle bounces. The SPF record for bounce.example.com needs to authorize the sending servers. The 'From' domain (e.g., example.com) will have its own SPF record.

June 2023 - Reddit
Marketer view

Email marketer from SocketLabs explains the importance of including your third-party mailer, in this case SFMC in your SPF. SFMC will likely have documentation on how to add them into your SPF, and how to setup SPF delegation.

May 2024 - SocketLabs
Marketer view

Email marketer from Sendgrid explains the common pitfalls when an SPF record fails. One pitfall is that the Return-Path domain does not include the sending server. Ensure the Return-Path SPF includes SFMC.

April 2023 - Sendgrid
Marketer view

Email marketer from Email on Acid shares that DMARC alignment requires either SPF or DKIM to pass, and the domain in the 'From' address must match the domain used for authentication. If the Return-Path domain is different, SPF alignment will fail unless the 'From' domain is also authorized to send on behalf of the Return-Path domain.

March 2023 - Email on Acid
Marketer view

Email marketer from Postmark describes that setting up a custom Return-Path (or bounce domain) is recommended. This allows you to control the SPF record and ensure it aligns with your sending practices. Make sure the SPF record for your custom Return-Path domain authorizes SFMC's sending IPs.

July 2023 - Postmark

What the experts say
6Expert opinions

SPF failures when the return path and sender from addresses differ in SFMC often stem from the Return-Path domain's SPF record not authorizing SFMC's sending servers. The 5321.from address may be an ExactTarget address, preventing users from seeing the SPF data directly. While the impact of SPF alignment on deliverability is variable, setting a custom Return-Path with an appropriate SPF record (including SFMC) can resolve the issue. A different Return-Path is also important to prevent bounce-related mailbombing. It's crucial to validate SPF records using testing tools.

Key opinions

  • 5321.from Address: The 5321.from address may be ExactTarget, limiting user data access. Full headers reveal Google's SPF domain.
  • SPF Alignment Impact: The impact of SPF alignment on deliverability has a low impact.
  • Separate Return-Path: A distinct Return-Path subdomain is vital for bounce handling and feedback loops and prevents abuse of the sender's From address.
  • SPF Validation: Checking SPF records with various tools is essential to validate configuration.

Key considerations

  • Custom Return-Path SPF: Implement an SPF record for the custom bounce.em.mybrand.com domain that includes SFMC to address SPF failures.
  • SPF Record Inclusion: Ensure the SPF record includes SFMC when utilizing third-party senders.
  • Different Return-Path: Using a different return path is important to prevent the sender's From address from being overwhelmed with bounces.
Expert view

Expert from Email Geeks states that the return path must be different from the sender.from address for bulk mail to prevent the sender.from address from being mailbombed with bounces.

March 2024 - Email Geeks
Expert view

Expert from Email Geeks shares that there isn't a definitive yes or no answer to the impact of SPF alignment on deliverability, but the chances of negative impact are low.

March 2023 - Email Geeks
Expert view

Expert from Spamresource.com explains that the Return-Path is critical for handling bounces and feedback loops. It is common to use a different subdomain for the Return-Path, and the SPF record for this subdomain must authorize the sending sources.

July 2021 - Spamresource.com
Expert view

Expert from Email Geeks suggests putting an SPF record for bounce.em.mybrand.com, which should resolve the issue.

November 2023 - Email Geeks
Expert view

Expert from Email Geeks explains that the 5321.from address is likely the exacttarget address, meaning the user isn't authorized to see data on that domain. Looking at the full headers will show the domain Google uses for SPF.

July 2024 - Email Geeks
Expert view

Expert from Word to the Wise recommends checking your SPF records with various tools to validate the configuration. When using a third-party sender such as SFMC, the SPF record must include them.

August 2021 - Word to the Wise

What the documentation says
5Technical articles

SPF failures related to differing Return-Path and Sender From addresses in SFMC can be addressed by properly configuring the SPF record for the Return-Path domain. Key actions involve ensuring the SPF record authorizes the sending IP addresses, especially those of SFMC. A dedicated bounce subdomain (Return-Path) is recommended for managing bounces and sender reputation. Salesforce's SAP (Sender Authentication Package) provides a branded domain and dedicated IP for authentication. The 'include:' mechanism in SPF records is essential for incorporating SFMC's SPF records.

Key findings

  • SPF Authentication: SPF verifies if the sending IP is authorized for the Return-Path domain.
  • Dedicated Bounce Domain: A dedicated subdomain for the Return-Path improves bounce handling and sender reputation.
  • SFMC Inclusion via 'include:': The 'include:' mechanism in SPF records allows referencing SFMC's SPF records within the Return-Path domain's SPF record.
  • SAP for Authentication: Salesforce's SAP provides dedicated IP and branded domain for enhanced authentication.

Key considerations

  • Control of Return-Path Domain: Ensure you control the domain used in the Return-Path to manage its SPF record effectively.
  • Including All Sending Sources: The SPF record should encompass all services used for sending email, including SFMC.
  • SPF/DKIM Setup: Properly configuring both SPF and DKIM is crucial for email deliverability and authentication.
Technical article

Documentation from Salesforce Help explains that SAP helps to build sender reputation. It includes dedicated IP address, branded domain for email authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC), and branded account URL.

November 2022 - Salesforce Help
Technical article

Documentation from SparkPost explains that Return-Path (also known as envelope from, 5321.MailFrom, or bounce address) is used to handle bounces. It should be a domain you control. Setting up a subdomain dedicated to bounces helps to manage sender reputation. Using a different domain than the 'From' address is common and doesn't inherently cause SPF failures if configured correctly.

June 2023 - SparkPost
Technical article

Documentation from Oracle Responsys details setting up SPF and DKIM. SPF should include all services used to send mail. A dedicated bounce domain can improve deliverability.

March 2023 - Oracle
Technical article

Documentation from Microsoft details the SPF record syntax, specifically the 'include:' mechanism. This mechanism allows you to reference other domains' SPF records, which is relevant when using services like SFMC (Salesforce Marketing Cloud). You may need to 'include' SFMC's SPF records in your Return-Path domain's SPF record.

August 2022 - Microsoft
Technical article

Documentation from DMARC.org details that SPF authentication checks if the sending IP address is authorized to send emails for the domain in the Return-Path address (also known as envelope from).

June 2021 - DMARC.org