--- title: "Alaska Trucking Email Security — 78.2% lack DMARC | EFROS" description: "Email-security posture of 2,305 active motor carriers in Alaska. 78.2% of domains have no enforced DMARC, 8.4% use p=reject. Free, public, source-cited." canonical: https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/alaska/ --- - [Home](https://efros.com/) - /[Research](https://efros.com/research/) - /[US Trucking Email Security Index](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/) - /[By State](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/) - /Alaska By State / Alaska # Alaska Trucking Email Security **78.2%** of active carrier domains in Alaska have no enforced DMARC. That leaves freight operators open to email impersonation, payment-redirect fraud, and cargo theft via phishing. Edition: 2026-Q2 State rank: #33 Carriers: 2,305 Domains: 1,422 By [Stefan Efros](https://www.linkedin.com/in/stefanefros-cyberdefense/), CEO & Founder, EFROS Updated · May 19, 2026 No enforced DMARC 78.2% national: 80.1% p=reject 8.4% national: 7.5% Microsoft 365 40.6% national: 38.1% M365 + no DMARC (carriers) 441 national: 92,822 MTA-STS 3.9% national: 3.3% DNSSEC 4.9% national: 6.1% Dead domains 113 of 1,422 scanned Total carriers 2,305 115 with dead domain ## Risk bands — Alaska carriers Carrier counts by risk band (composite email-security pain score). Critical = score 70+; Minimal = score <15. | Risk band | Score range | Carriers | Domains | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Critical | score 70+ | 185 | 144 | | High | score 50–69 | 983 | 383 | | Medium | score 30–49 | 685 | 556 | | Low | score 15–29 | 323 | 214 | | Minimal | score ## Alaska vs. national average No enforced DMARC 78.2% vs 80.1% national p=reject adoption 8.4% vs 7.5% national MTA-STS 3.9% vs 3.3% national DNSSEC 4.9% vs 6.1% national ## What the Alaska numbers actually mean **DMARC posture.** Alaska's share of carrier domains with no enforced DMARC sits at **78.2%**, better than the national average by 1.9 points. enforced p=reject DMARC adoption is roughly in line with the national pool: most Alaska domains either have no DMARC at all or are stuck at the monitor-only p=none policy. At the protective end of the distribution, 8.4% of Alaska domains are at p=reject, the only DMARC policy that actually instructs receivers to drop spoofed mail. **Microsoft 365 surface.** Microsoft 365 mailflow adoption is heavier than the national distribution. Every M365 tenant already includes the controls needed to enforce DMARC, so the 441 M365 carriers in Alaska with DMARC disabled are leaving paid-for protection switched off. That share is **19.1%** of all Alaska carriers — a one-flag-flip remediation set that any regional MSP or in-house IT lead can clear in a single quarter. **Transport encryption.** MTA-STS adoption sits at 3.9%, materially below the threshold a freight payment-redirect attacker would have to clear to be inconvenienced by transport-layer policy. DNSSEC adoption in Alaska runs at **4.9%** (vs 6.1% national), which matters for downstream DKIM and MTA-STS validation but is still a minority signal. **Risk-band shape.** Alaska's critical and high bands combine to 50.6% of state carriers, close to the national distribution, so remediation prioritization here should follow the same shape as the national program. The composite pain score blends SPF posture, DMARC enforcement, MTA-STS presence, and DNSSEC, so a carrier clusters in the critical band only when several controls fail together. Remediation that flips DMARC to enforcement plus turns on MTA-STS typically moves a carrier two bands down in one quarter. **What this means for buyers and shippers.** If you are dispatching freight, settling broker payments, or receiving rate confirmations from Alaska-based carriers, the operational exposure is the 78.2%of domains that cannot stop a stranger from sending email in the carrier's name. Payment-redirect and load-redirect fraud rides on exactly that gap. Verifying a counterparty's DMARC posture before a first wire (a 30-second DNS lookup) is the cheapest control in the freight stack. ## Compare Alaska with other states States closest in carrier-count rank to Alaska. Each is scored on the same DNS-derived control set, so the comparison is apples-to-apples. [### Nebraska Rank #3276.7% no DMARC · 4,402 carriers](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/nebraska/) [### Maine Rank #3481.0% no DMARC · 2,664 carriers](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/maine/) [### Connecticut Rank #3179.2% no DMARC · 4,450 carriers](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/connecticut/) [### Idaho Rank #3578.6% no DMARC · 2,891 carriers](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/idaho/) [### South Carolina Rank #3079.2% no DMARC · 4,191 carriers](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/south-carolina/) [← Full US Trucking Email Security Index](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/) [← All states](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/) [Switch to cargo-segment view →](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-cargo/) ## See where your own domain stands The research is free and self-serve. Run the same public checks on your own domain in about a minute — SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MTA-STS, DNSSEC, and more — and get a scored report by email. No agents, no credentials. [Scan your domain free →](https://efros.com/tools/security-scan/) [Email security for fleets](https://efros.com/industries/trucking-company-msp/) [Talk to EFROS](https://efros.com/contact/?source=trucking-email-research) Data as of 2026-05-20from public DNS measurements. Statistics are domain-weighted unless noted. State scope is the carrier's FMCSA-registered state. Methodology: [read the full index](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/).