Is it worse for bulk senders to have DMARC fail or not have DMARC at all?

Email marketer from StackExchange explains on StackExchange that failing DMARC is worse because failing DMARC can have an impact on your deliverability, and a 'p=none' policy is more beneficial for your sender reputation.

Email marketer from SparkPost responds that a failing DMARC record is more detrimental because it suggests an active but flawed attempt at authentication, leading ISPs to view the sender with more suspicion. They suggest starting with a 'p=none' policy to monitor results before implementing stricter policies.

Email marketer from Email Geeks explains that many hosting/domain providers now set up DMARC records by default, which can be problematic without proper tools or education for customers, leading to confusion about reports and delivery issues.

Email marketer from Reddit explains on r/emailmarketing that failing DMARC suggests an attempt at authentication which isn't working, which is suspicious. No DMARC is better than failing DMARC as you have not declared anything to monitor.

Email marketer from EmailToolTester explains a common reason why your DMARC may fail and its important to ensure your emails are sending correctly. A DMARC failure is worse than no record.

Email marketer from Email Geeks shares that some providers use implicit DMARC to infer intended configurations.

Email marketer from Mailjet shares that failing DMARC is worse because it shows a lack of proper setup, which damages sender reputation more than simply not having DMARC. They emphasize the importance of proper SPF and DKIM setup before enabling DMARC.

Email marketer from Reddit on r/email explains that for initial setup it's vital to have p=none as setting the policy to reject or quarantine too early will cause deliverability issues if not properly configured.

Email marketer from Email Hippos shares that setting DMARC to p=none to monitor your email sending practices is the best way to prevent a poor DMARC configuration being setup in the first place. Therefore better than a failing DMARC configuration.

Email marketer from SendGrid explains that failing DMARC negatively impacts sender reputation more than not having DMARC, as it suggests a misconfigured or malicious attempt at authentication. Starting with 'p=none' is recommended for monitoring and then moving to stricter policies.

Expert from Email Geeks responds that DMARC failure is worse than having no DMARC at all, because publishing DMARC, even with p=none, implies consideration of authentication. If mail isn’t authenticated despite this, it’s less likely to be legitimate.

Expert from Spam Resource explains that having a failing DMARC implementation is worse for deliverability than not having DMARC at all. Failing DMARC indicates that you've attempted to set up authentication but have done so incorrectly, signalling potential spoofing attempts.

Expert from Word to the Wise explains that the first steps of implementing DMARC, include implementing p=none to monitor traffic, and it's better than a failing DMARC policy. They also highlight that a failing DMARC is not as beneficial as a domain with no DMARC set at all.

Documentation from RFC Editor details the DMARC specification (RFC 7489) stating that failing DMARC is detrimental and can lead to emails being rejected or quarantined, impacting deliverability. No DMARC can be better than a failing DMARC.

Documentation from DMARC.org responds that failing DMARC is damaging. It also explains that a 'p=none' policy is for monitoring purposes and does not actively prevent spoofing, so it will not improve deliverability on its own. However, strict policies like 'reject' without proper configuration can lead to legitimate emails being blocked.

Documentation from Valimail shows the importance of having correct DMARC records, with the correct authentication (DKIM/SPF) otherwise it will impact your sending domain reputation and deliverability, and no DMARC record is better than a failing DMARC record.

Documentation from Google explains that a failing DMARC policy is generally worse because it signals that you are trying to authenticate but failing, which could indicate a spoofing attempt. A 'p=none' policy is better than a failing DMARC.

Documentation from Microsoft explains that failing DMARC indicates a more significant problem because it demonstrates that the sender is attempting to use authentication but failing, thus raising suspicion with email receivers. They recommend careful monitoring and testing before implementing stricter DMARC policies.