Measure spoofing risk, validate email controls, and prioritize remediation. Enter policy and alignment values securely. Get fast results with clear visual scoring and exports.
Use this form to estimate domain spoof resistance from authentication, alignment, enforcement, and control hygiene.
This example shows a sample domain profile and the expected scoring pattern.
| Field | Example Value | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Domain | example.com | Reference test domain. |
| Daily Email Volume | 50,000 | Moderate transactional and marketing traffic. |
| SPF Status | Pass | Authorized sender list is valid. |
| DKIM Status | Pass | Messages are signed correctly. |
| DMARC Policy | Quarantine at 100% | Policy is enforced for all mail. |
| SPF Alignment | Relaxed | Partial alignment still allows some flexibility. |
| DKIM Alignment | Strict | Signed domain fully matches visible sender. |
| ARC Enabled | Yes | Helps preserve trust through forwarding chains. |
| Third-Party Senders | 4 | Vendor footprint exists but is manageable. |
| Recent Incidents | 1 | Some exposure remains. |
| Expected Protection Score | ≈ 86.2 | Strong defensive posture. |
| Expected Spoof Risk Index | ≈ 13.8 | Low residual spoof exposure. |
Protection Score = Σ(Factor Score × Weight) ÷ 100
Spoof Risk Index = 100 − Protection Score
Policy Strength = DMARC Policy Base × Enforcement Percentage
Risk-Adjusted Mail Surface = Daily Email Volume × Spoof Risk Index ÷ 100
The calculator converts each control into a normalized factor score from 0 to 100, then applies weighted importance. Authentication and enforcement receive the largest weights because they most directly affect sender validation and policy action.
| Factor | Weight | Scoring Logic |
|---|---|---|
| SPF Authentication | 12% | Pass scores highest. Missing or fail scores lowest. |
| DKIM Authentication | 12% | Pass is strongest. Partial signing reduces score. |
| DMARC Enforcement | 14% | Reject beats quarantine. Both scale by pct value. |
| SPF and DKIM Alignment | 20% | Strict scores highest. Relaxed is partial. None is weakest. |
| ARC and Forwarding | 11% | Improves resilience when messages traverse intermediaries. |
| Third-Party Sender Control | 7% | More senders increase drift and governance risk. |
| Incidents and Monitoring | 13% | Recent abuse lowers score. Frequent review raises score. |
| Hygiene Controls | 11% | DNS freshness, lookalike monitoring, BIMI, and VIP protection. |
It estimates how resistant a domain is to sender spoofing by scoring authentication, alignment, enforcement, monitoring, and hygiene controls. It is a planning tool, not a live relay or attack platform.
No. It does not send mail, probe inboxes, or touch third-party systems. It only calculates a defensive score from the values you provide.
DMARC converts authentication outcomes into policy action. Without meaningful enforcement, spoofed messages may still reach recipients even when SPF or DKIM data exists.
Alignment checks whether authenticated domains match the visible sender identity. Strict alignment reduces the chance that technically authenticated but misleading mail is accepted.
It is a relative exposure indicator based on daily message volume and spoof risk index. Higher traffic can magnify the operational impact of weak controls.
Each additional platform increases the chance of record drift, signing inconsistency, or undocumented sending paths. Strong governance keeps that risk lower.
No. A high score improves resistance, but no single configuration guarantees zero abuse. Continuous monitoring and policy maintenance remain necessary.
Review after vendor changes, DNS updates, branding events, executive turnover, or any phishing surge. Weekly or daily review usually provides better visibility than monthly checks.
Important Note: All the Calculators listed in this site are for educational purpose only and we do not guarentee the accuracy of results. Please do consult with other sources as well.