Fongo VM email Spam issues

[Phone-101]

Hello,

I saw that the voicemail to email is sent via this address : xxxxxx@vm.fongo.com.

Sometimes the emails get rejected or flagged for spam, and I think I know why.

The subdomain : vm.fongo.com does not have any DMARC DNS Records that is setup, unlike fongo.com.

Would it be possible to fix this DNS Records settings issue to ensure proper email delivery of the VM messages ?

Thanks.

[Liptonbrisk]

I described the problem months ago and notified Fongo about it as well: viewtopic.php?p=82104#p82104

[lustucru]

I had the same issue a while ago and fixed it by putting @vm.fongo.com domain name in Gmail white list,

[Liptonbrisk]

There’s, potentially, a bigger issue here than simply having email end up in spam folders. I suggest these voicemail emails may end up being completely rejected by some email providers/hosts in the future.



v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:mailauth-reports@fongo.com;

While the DMARC policy (p=none) tells receiving servers how to handle DMARC failures, major email providers, such as Yahoo, have implemented stricter requirements, especially for bulk senders, since early 2024.

These new requirements mean that simply having a DMARC record with p=none is no longer sufficient to guarantee delivery if sender’s emails fail authentication (SPF and/or DKIM).

If emails fail authentication and are being sent to a recipient on a service that enforces new standards, email providers may reject email based on their own receiving policies and compliance requirements, even if the published DMARC policy is p=none.

While the sending domain's DMARC policy is still consulted, a DMARC failure combined with the receiving provider's internal rules for handling unauthenticated mail (especially from senders who don't meet requirements) can lead to complete rejection, even if the sender's policy isn't p=reject.

That’s why email senders are advised not only to implement DMARC but also to ensure their SPF and DKIM records are correctly configured so that legitimate emails pass authentication, regardless of the published DMARC policy.

[Liptonbrisk]

Anyway, here's how to fix the SPF authentication problem.

I can see this information after running email headers through https://mxtoolbox.com/Public/Tools/EmailHeaders.aspx

spf:vm.fongo.com:208.85.217.136

v=spf1 ip4:66.38.192.0/24 ip4:74.205.217.0/24 ip4:208.85.220.0/24 ip4:98.143.96.0/24 ip4:162.213.111.0/24 ip4:98.143.111.0/24 ip4:208.85.218.0/24 ip4:208.85.217.0/24 ip4:208.65.240.134 mx include:mail.zendesk.com include:icpbounce.com include:servers.mcsv.net include:porta-sip(at)fibernetics.ca ~all

"include" in an SPF record is used to incorporate the SPF records of another domain. The format is "include:another-domain.com". The value after "include:" must be a valid domain name.

But porta-sip(at)fibernetics.ca is an email address--not a domain name. You can't include an email address in an SPF record.


So, the domain owner (Fibernetics/Fongo, who manages the vm.fongo.com domain) needs to correct the SPF record published in the DNS for vm.fongo.com.

They need to replace "include:porta-sip(at)fibernetics.ca" entry with the correct domain name that contains the SPF records for the servers used by the "porta-sip" service(s).

Regardless, DKIM isn't set up at all. In the event a receiving server requires both DKIM and SPF, it's game over.

[Liptonbrisk]

Regardless, DKIM isn't set up at all. In the event a receiving server requires both DKIM and SPF, it's game over.

Since 2024 (Google and Yahoo) and May 2025 (Microsoft), major email providers require bulk senders (those sending 5,000 or more emails per day to their users) to authenticate emails using both SPF and DKIM, in addition to having a published DMARC record (even if it's just p=none). Failure to meet these requirements can result in emails being sent to spam or outright rejected.

Working around (whitelisting) spam is one thing. Dealing with rejected emails is another; users can't whitelist something they never receive.