How to Read a DMARC Aggregate Report (XML, Field by Field)

Most domains that publish DMARC never read their reports. Of every domain DMARCguard scans with a working DMARC record, only 16.3% publish a working rua= URI — the other 83.7% fly blind, with enforcement on and telemetry off. This guide walks every field of a real DMARC aggregate report XML, shows the same record rendered in DMARCguard’s report drawer, and gives you a four-pattern field guide for telling ESP rotation apart from real spoofing.

DMARC aggregate reports arrive in your rua= mailbox daily from Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Mail.ru, and a long tail of boutique receivers as .gz or .zip attachments full of XML. By the end of this article you will be able to extract the attachment, name every element of <feedback> from <report_metadata> down to <auth_results>, tell ESP rotation apart from forwarder breakage apart from a real spoofing run, and jump straight to a one-click verdict in the DMARCguard report drawer.

What is a DMARC aggregate report?

A DMARC aggregate report (the rua report) is a daily, machine-readable summary one receiving mail provider sends to one policy domain owner. The schema is defined in RFC 7489 §7.2 and consists of a single <feedback> XML root with three branches: who reported and when (<report_metadata>), what your DMARC TXT record said at scan time (<policy_published>), and one <record> per (source_ip, day) roll-up. That last branch is where the verdicts live.

Cadence is roughly daily; transport is plain SMTP back to the address in your rua= tag. Most receivers compress the XML — Google .zip, Microsoft .xml.gz, Yahoo .zip, Mail.ru .gz. The aggregate report is distinct from the forensic (ruf) report — RFC 7489 mandates aggregate, but forensic is optional and most receivers do not emit it for privacy reasons.

The 2015 RFC 7489 schema is superseded by RFC 9990 (May 2026). RFC 9990 adds <np> for non-existent subdomains, <discovery_method> (values psl or treewalk), and <envelope_from>; it removes forwarded and sampled_out from the <reason><type> enumeration and adds the policy_test_mode enum value. Most production receivers still emit RFC 7489 shapes, so the walkthrough below treats the 2015 schema as the floor and flags where RFC 9990 adds surface. See our day-one DMARCbis analysis for the full field list.

Step 1 — Extract the .gz or .zip attachment

Almost every guide skips this step. The XML inside the email is compressed, and the filename embeds the reporter, the policy domain, and the window — Google ships google.com!example.com!1747008000!1747094400.zip, Microsoft ships enterprise.protection.outlook.com!example.com!1747008000!1747094400.xml.gz. A Hacker News discussion in December 2025 captured the underlying confusion: recipients literally treat the attachment as suspected malware and never open it.

The decompression step is one line per format:

gunzip *.gz       # Microsoft, Mail.ru
unzip '*.zip'     # Google, Yahoo

Inside each archive is one XML file — the <feedback> document this guide walks. DMARCguard ingests both formats automatically (zip support shipped in commit 8aa5c12 on 2026-04-27); forward the email or paste the XML into the free DMARC report analyzer and the verdicts come back without the file dance.

The 7 sections of a DMARC report

Every <feedback> XML document has the same seven sections. Each maps cleanly to a row, badge, or chip in the DMARCguard report drawer, which is what makes the side-by-side reading possible. This is the canonical DMARC report explained, top to bottom.

The two columns that confuse first-time readers are <auth_results> and <policy_evaluated>. The first is the raw SPF/DKIM result the receiver saw on the wire. The second is the DMARC verdict after the receiver checked alignment between the authenticated domain and your header_from. You will see the difference clearly in the field-by-field walk below.

Reading the XML — field by field

The cleanest way to learn the format is on a real document. The snippet below is the same minimal <feedback> document DMARCguard’s DMARC failure guide uses; it captures the most common shape — one record, one source IP, the characteristic ESP “DKIM aligned, SPF unaligned” pattern.

<feedback>
  <policy_published>
    <domain>example.com</domain>
    <p>quarantine</p>
    <sp>none</sp>
    <pct>100</pct>
  </policy_published>
  <record>
    <row>
      <source_ip>198.51.100.42</source_ip>
      <count>1523</count>
      <policy_evaluated>
        <disposition>none</disposition>
        <dkim>fail</dkim>
        <spf>fail</spf>
      </policy_evaluated>
    </row>
    <identifiers>
      <header_from>example.com</header_from>
    </identifiers>
    <auth_results>
      <spf>
        <domain>bounces.esp.com</domain>
        <result>pass</result>
      </spf>
      <dkim>
        <domain>esp.com</domain>
        <result>pass</result>
      </dkim>
    </auth_results>
  </record>
</feedback>

Walk it section by section.

<report_metadata> — who reported, when, what window

The metadata block names the reporter, gives you a contact, and stamps the report window in epoch seconds (UTC). Every reporter emits the four required fields — org_name, email, report_id, date_range — but each reporter shapes <report_id> differently, which is your first fingerprint for telling them apart.

Sources: Google Workspace Help 2026-03; Microsoft Learn 2025-2026; parsedmarc #86 for Yahoo; URIports cross-receiver analysis 2024-04. Microsoft aligns date_range to UTC midnight exactly; Google and Yahoo anchor a 24-hour rolling window to the receiver’s pipeline cut.

<policy_published> — what your DMARC said at scan time

This block is a structured echo of your DMARC TXT record at the moment the receiver evaluated mail. The spec lists domain, adkim, aspf, p, sp, pct, and fo, but field presence is messier in practice: URIports’ April 2024 audit confirmed Google, Yahoo, and LinkedIn all omit <fo> despite the XSD requiring it, because their reporters were coded against the pre-2013 draft and never refreshed.

The adkim and aspf values are r (relaxed, the default) or s (strict). Relaxed lets a subdomain of header_from align; strict requires an exact match. pct is a rollout knob, not a verdict modifier. DMARCbis adds <np> for the policy that applies when an attacker spoofs a non-existent subdomain.

<record><row> — one source IP, one day

The <record> is where the verdicts live. One <record> covers one (source_ip, header_from, day) combination, and <count> is the number of messages that combination saw in the window. Critically, the verdicts in <policy_evaluated> are not the raw SPF and DKIM checks — they are the DMARC verdict after the receiver applied alignment to header_from.

A <reason><type> element appears when the receiver overrode the policy. RFC 7489 §6.7 defines six values: forwarded, sampled_out, trusted_forwarder, mailing_list, local_policy, other. DMARCbis-32 removes forwarded and sampled_out and adds policy_test_mode. The most useful override in practice is local_policy with <comment>arc=pass</comment> — Gmail emits this reliably when an ARC seal validated the upstream chain; M365 emits it only when the seal’s domain is in the tenant’s Set-ArcConfig -ArcTrustedSealers list (Mimecast auto-added 2024-03-13).

<identifiers> — what address space

<header_from> is always populated and is the domain whose DMARC record the verdict applies to (the RFC5322 From). Microsoft is effectively alone among major receivers in also populating <envelope_to> and <envelope_from> (the RFC5321 envelope identifiers, emitted starting March 2023). Google, Yahoo, and Mail.ru omit them. That single difference is one of the cleanest fingerprints for telling a Microsoft report from a Google one without looking at the <report_id>.

<auth_results><spf> — raw SPF alignment check

The <spf> block is the raw SPF check the receiver ran. domain is the SPF authentication domain (typically Return-Path), result is pass/fail/softfail/neutral/none/temperror/permerror, and scope is mfrom or helo. Yahoo and Mail.ru historically omit <scope> entirely.

If you see <auth_results><spf><result>pass</result> paired with <policy_evaluated><spf>fail, that is textbook ESP rotation — the ESP’s own SPF passes for the ESP’s domain, but the customer’s header_from does not align.

<auth_results><dkim> — raw DKIM alignment check

The <dkim> block is the raw DKIM verification. domain is the DKIM d= value, selector is s=, and result mirrors SPF’s enumeration. Multi-signature messages produce one <dkim> element per signature; OVH-related reporters have been observed double-emitting identical pairs (parsedmarc #539). Yahoo did not emit <selector> until May 2021.

DMARC’s DKIM column passes when at least one signature with d= aligned to header_from validates. This is the alignment that survives forwarding.

Variant callout — Microsoft vs Google fingerprint

To identify a reporter from the wire alone, Microsoft vs Google is the cleanest contrast. The Microsoft flavor below is schema-faithful: xmlns:xsd/xmlns:xsi on the root, an explicit <version>1.0</version>, populated envelope identifiers, SPF <scope>, and <fo>0</fo>.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feedback xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
          xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
  <version>1.0</version>
  <report_metadata>
    <org_name>Enterprise Outlook</org_name>
    <email>dmarcreport@microsoft.com</email>
    <report_id>6d61656ef72841079dab98de42510b9e</report_id>
    <date_range>
      <begin>1747008000</begin>
      <end>1747094400</end>
    </date_range>
  </report_metadata>
  <policy_published>
    <domain>example.com</domain>
    <adkim>r</adkim>
    <aspf>r</aspf>
    <p>quarantine</p>
    <sp>none</sp>
    <pct>100</pct>
    <fo>0</fo>
  </policy_published>
  <record>
    <row>
      <source_ip>40.92.10.42</source_ip>
      <count>318</count>
      <policy_evaluated>
        <disposition>none</disposition>
        <dkim>pass</dkim>
        <spf>fail</spf>
      </policy_evaluated>
    </row>
    <identifiers>
      <envelope_to>contoso.com</envelope_to>
      <envelope_from>bounces.esp.com</envelope_from>
      <header_from>example.com</header_from>
    </identifiers>
    <auth_results>
      <spf>
        <domain>bounces.esp.com</domain>
        <scope>mfrom</scope>
        <result>pass</result>
      </spf>
      <dkim>
        <domain>example.com</domain>
        <selector>s1</selector>
        <result>pass</result>
      </dkim>
    </auth_results>
  </record>
</feedback>
<!--
Schema-correct illustrative example. No captured Microsoft RUA is checked
into this repository; this snippet reproduces Microsoft's documented
fingerprint (xmlns:xsd / xmlns:xsi on the root, explicit <version>1.0</version>,
<envelope_to> + <envelope_from> populated, <fo>0</fo>, SPF <scope>mfrom</scope>,
DKIM <selector>) as described on Microsoft Learn (2025-2026) and the URIports
2024-04 cross-receiver compliance analysis.
-->

This is a schema-correct illustrative example — no captured Microsoft RUA is checked into this repository; the XML reproduces the fingerprint described on Microsoft Learn (2025-2026) and the URIports April 2024 analysis. A real Google <feedback> document is the inverse: no <version>, no XSD namespaces, no envelope identifiers, numeric <report_id>.

Live demo — same XML in the DMARCguard report drawer

This is the asset every other guide skips. The DMARCguard report drawer opens directly from the reports list, deep-links via ?report=<id> for sharing inside teams, and answers the three questions every dashboard owes the user — how am I doing, what should I do, show me the details — without leaving the page. The drawer shipped to production on 2026-04-27.

The drawer renders the same <feedback> document the previous section walked in three layers. The verdict hero answers how am I doing? — sourced from <policy_published> plus an aggregation across Records[], with one badge per policy element. The failure-summary stat cards answer what should I do? — three small cards counting records where SPF fails, DKIM fails, and both fail; the combined-fail count is the action priority. The Records and Raw Data tabs answer show me the details, with one row per source IP named where DMARCguard recognizes the sender, and the raw XML on demand. The Download XML button serves Content-Type: application/xml. Paste your own XML into the analyzer to try it; nothing leaves your browser.

Failure-pattern interpretation gallery

After a few weeks of reading reports, four patterns cover most of what shows up in your <record> blocks. Each XML signature is distinct enough to recognize at a glance.

Healthy ESP rotation (Amazon SES, SendGrid, HubSpot)

ESPs send mail from large shared IP pools and authenticate against their own SPF domain. The XML signature is many low-<count> rows in an ESP CIDR — AWS SES 23.249.208.0/20, SendGrid 167.89.0.0/17, HubSpot’s hubspotemail.net. <auth_results><spf><domain> is the ESP’s bounce subdomain — raw SPF passes but does not align with <header_from>customer.com. <auth_results><dkim><domain> is the customer’s domain when DKIM CNAMEs are correct, and DKIM aligns. Net <policy_evaluated><dkim>pass</dkim><spf>fail</spf> — DMARC passes via DKIM alone.

This looks alarming the first time you see it; it is harmless and dominant in any production report. The fix on Amazon SES or SendGrid is a custom MAIL FROM subdomain so the SPF authentication domain becomes relaxed-aligned. HubSpot’s shared pool offers no such path without a dedicated-IP add-on, so DKIM-only enforcement is the design.

Mailing-list and ARC breakage (Mailman 3, Google Groups, Microsoft sealers)

Mailing lists rewrite Subject lines and append unsubscribe footers, which breaks the original DKIM signature. The signature is a list MTA in <source_ip>, <auth_results><spf><domain> matching the list’s own domain with result=pass, and <auth_results><dkim><domain> matching the original sender with result=fail. Both <policy_evaluated> columns fail. Where the list ARC-seals and the receiver trusts the seal, the override appears as <reason><type>local_policy</type><comment>arc=pass</comment></reason>.

Debian bug #1086707 (2024-11) documented Mailman 3’s default: no DMARC mitigation. Fix: dmarc_mitigate_action = munge_from in Postorius. Google Groups rewrites From only at p=quarantine or stricter — at p=none, list traffic emits the broken pattern unmodified, which is why the February 2024 bulk-sender mandates created a wave of new list breakage in everyone’s reports.

Forwarder breakage (Princeton, MIT, Fastmail, iCloud relay)

A forwarder rewrites the envelope but ideally leaves the body and DKIM signature untouched. Princeton’s @alumni.princeton.edu, MIT’s @alum.mit.edu, and Fastmail’s relay all behave that way — so the signature is the forwarder’s egress IP in <source_ip>, <auth_results><spf> unaligned but passing for the forwarder’s domain, and <auth_results><dkim> for the original sender still passing. Net <policy_evaluated><dkim>pass</dkim><spf>fail</spf> — DMARC pass via DKIM. Princeton shut down its forwarding service for exactly this DMARC reason in mid-2024.

The contrast case is iCloud Hide My Email and DuckDuckGo Email Protection. These normalize MIME and re-sign as d=icloud.com (or strip the original signature entirely), which breaks DKIM. With no consumable ARC seal at the external receiver, DMARC fails — typically with <reason><type>forwarded</type></reason> per RFC 7489 §6.7 (DMARCbis-32 drops this enum and reaches the same conclusion via local_policy). There is no sender-side fix. Design enforcement so forwarder rows do not block legitimate streams: exclude them from p=reject decisions, rely on ARC where available.

Real spoofing (Microsoft 2026-01-06, GlockApps 2025-03)

Spoofing has a distinct shape. Microsoft Threat Intelligence’s January 2026 write-up captured it: source IPs from an unfamiliar ASN (OVH 51.89.59.188, DigitalOcean), <auth_results><spf>fail</spf> for the spoofed brand, no <auth_results><dkim> block at all because the message is unsigned, <header_from> matching the brand under attack, and high <count> values. There is no <reason> block. If you see this pattern, it is real.

Fix: validate every legitimate connector, then ratchet p=none to quarantine to reject. Continue auditing weekly for new ASNs reusing your header_from. The GlockApps 2025-03 case study caught a spoofing run via RUA volume the moment new IPs appeared.

Cheatsheet

To go deeper on a specific failure mode and what to change in your DNS or your sending pipeline, the DMARC failure troubleshooting guide walks each cause with platform-specific fixes for Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and Amazon SES.

Tools that parse DMARC XML — feature parity matrix

There are roughly seven serious tools in this category. The matrix below summarizes paste-XML support, multi-domain dashboarding, free domain quotas, named-sender enrichment, ARC analysis, RUF (forensic) support, export formats, and AI remediation. All cells were verified on 2026-04-29; vendor pages move, so re-check before you cite.

DMARCguard is our product — to be transparent, we differentiate on paste-XML that runs in the browser (nothing uploaded), ARC chain analysis where every other commercial tool is silent or partial, and AI-driven remediation where competitors stop at static recommendations. We do not win on every cell. parsedmarc is open-source and free for unlimited domains; dmarcian has a more mature multi-tenant platform built over a decade of work.

Pricing snapshot (2026-04-29, billed annually where shown): MXToolbox $129/mo; Postmark DMARC Digests free; EasyDMARC $35.99/mo for 2 domains; Valimail Monitor free with paid tiers starting at $5,000/year; DMARCguard $29/mo for 2 domains (Pro), or $14.50/mo on the locked-in founding rate; parsedmarc free and self-hosted. For a line-by-line pricing and feature breakdown against DMARCguard, see the EasyDMARC pricing comparison, the dmarcian pricing comparison, and the Valimail pricing comparison. None of this changes the wire format — paste your XML into the analyzer and compare the output to whatever tool you use today.

From one report to monitoring 30 a week

Reading one DMARC report is a skill. Reading the 30 your reporters will send you next week is a workflow. The drawer + deep-link + digest emails take you from unzip + grep to clicking through a ?report=<id> link from an alert. The Records tab names sources where DMARCguard recognizes them, the failure-summary stat cards put the action priority above the fold, and the deep-link URL means alerts and digest emails can drop a teammate straight onto the same view.

If you are running this for multiple clients, the multi-tenant model needs different scaffolding — separate billing, per-client digest emails, role-based drawer access, and a way to keep one client’s report data out of another’s view. The follow-up DMARC for MSPs guide walks the multi-tenant patterns from pricing to channel integrations to the buyer-journey objections specific to consultancies. To review the DMARC protocol fundamentals before you take the workflow on at scale, the protocol guide covers RFC 7489 and DMARCbis end to end.

FAQ

How do I read a DMARC report?

Extract the .gz or .zip attachment to reveal a <feedback> XML document. Read top-down: <report_metadata> (who, when), <policy_published> (your DMARC TXT), then each <record> for source IP, count, and verdict. Each <auth_results> shows raw SPF/DKIM; <policy_evaluated> shows DMARC after alignment.

Do I need to read DMARC reports?

Yes if you want enforcement to work. Operators sometimes argue small senders can skip them, but blind enforcement is how legitimate streams break silently. DMARCguard’s research shows 83.7% of DMARC-publishing domains never read their telemetry. A managed analyzer with a free tier removes the manual XML burden.

What should I do with DMARC reports?

Three jobs: confirm legitimate sources align, spot unfamiliar ASNs reusing your header_from, and ratchet p=none to quarantine to reject only after legitimate streams pass. Reports without action are noise. Use a tool that names sending sources (Mailchimp, SendGrid) instead of raw IPs and surfaces alignment failures by source.

What is the difference between aggregate (rua) and forensic (ruf) reports?

Aggregate reports summarize daily traffic per source IP — counts and verdicts only. Forensic (failure) reports send a redacted copy of one failing message in ARF format. RFC 7489 mandates aggregate; forensic is optional and most receivers do not send it for privacy reasons.

Why does my DMARC report show SPF fail but DMARC pass?

DMARC passes if either SPF or DKIM passes and is aligned with header_from. ESPs commonly send mail with their own SPF authentication domain (unaligned) and a customer-domain DKIM signature (aligned). The <policy_evaluated> block reflects that combined verdict — spf=fail, dkim=pass, DMARC pass.

Are DMARC report IPs personal data under GDPR?

RFC 9990 §7 (Privacy Considerations) says aggregate reports contain no personal data. The 2018 ECO/CSA legal analysis treats source IPs as personal data but lawfully processable as traffic data. No DPA has issued DMARC-specific guidance. Pointing rua= to a SaaS aggregator engages GDPR Article 28 controller-processor obligations.

What is a free DMARC report analyzer?

A tool that parses the XML and renders it as readable verdicts. DMARCguard’s analyzer at /tools/dmarc-report-analyzer/ runs in your browser — paste XML, see verdicts, no signup, nothing uploaded. dmarcian’s converter and parsedmarc (open-source) are alternatives; see the matrix above for feature parity.

Conclusion

If only 16.3% of DMARC adopters publish a working rua= URI, the difference between enforcement and theatre is the skill you just learned. Every <feedback> document has the same seven sections, receivers vary at the edges (Microsoft schema-faithful, Google minimal, Yahoo and Mail.ru pre-2013-draft), and four failure patterns — ESP rotation, list and ARC breakage, forwarder breakage, real spoofing — cover most of what shows up in the wild. Knowing how to read a DMARC report turns every <record> block into a decision.

Paste your next aggregate report into the free DMARC report analyzer to see the rendered verdicts in your browser, no signup. When you are ready to monitor instead of audit, the Hobbyist plan covers two domains free with seven of nine protocols. If you run this for clients, the DMARC for MSPs guide is the next step.