--- title: "Colorado Trucking Email Security — 79.0% lack DMARC | EFROS" description: "Email-security posture of 10,031 active motor carriers in Colorado. 79.0% 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/colorado/ --- - [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/) - /Colorado By State / Colorado # Colorado Trucking Email Security **79.0%** of active carrier domains in Colorado 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: #14 Carriers: 10,031 Domains: 8,337 By [Stefan Efros](https://www.linkedin.com/in/stefanefros-cyberdefense/), CEO & Founder, EFROS Updated · May 19, 2026 No enforced DMARC 79.0% national: 80.1% p=reject 8.4% national: 7.5% Microsoft 365 37.1% national: 38.1% M365 + no DMARC (carriers) 2,256 national: 92,822 MTA-STS 4.3% national: 3.3% DNSSEC 5.3% national: 6.1% Dead domains 850 of 8,337 scanned Total carriers 10,031 850 with dead domain ## Risk bands — Colorado 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+ | 1,074 | 918 | | High | score 50–69 | 2,577 | 2,130 | | Medium | score 30–49 | 3,855 | 3,190 | | Low | score 15–29 | 1,591 | 1,180 | | Minimal | score ## Colorado vs. national average No enforced DMARC 79.0% vs 80.1% national p=reject adoption 8.4% vs 7.5% national MTA-STS 4.3% vs 3.3% national DNSSEC 5.3% vs 6.1% national ## What the Colorado numbers actually mean **DMARC posture.** Colorado's share of carrier domains with no enforced DMARC sits at **79.0%**, within 1.1 points of the national average. enforced p=reject DMARC adoption is roughly in line with the national pool: most Colorado 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 Colorado domains are at p=reject, the only DMARC policy that actually instructs receivers to drop spoofed mail. **Microsoft 365 surface.** Microsoft 365 mailflow adoption tracks the national distribution closely, so the 2,256 M365 carriers in Colorado with DMARC disabled represent the same "paid-for-but-switched-off" pattern that drives the national headline. That share is **22.5%** of all Colorado 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 4.3%, materially below the threshold a freight payment-redirect attacker would have to clear to be inconvenienced by transport-layer policy. DNSSEC adoption in Colorado runs at **5.3%** (vs 6.1% national), which matters for downstream DKIM and MTA-STS validation but is still a minority signal. **Risk-band shape.** 10.7% of Colorado carriers sit in the critical risk band (score 70+), above the national share of 8.4%. A disproportionate cluster carries simultaneously broken SPF, missing or monitor-only DMARC, and no MTA-STS. 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 Colorado-based carriers, the operational exposure is the 79.0%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 Colorado with other states States closest in carrier-count rank to Colorado. Each is scored on the same DNS-derived control set, so the comparison is apples-to-apples. [### Ohio Rank #1375.9% no DMARC · 11,310 carriers](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/ohio/) [### New Jersey Rank #1578.8% no DMARC · 9,844 carriers](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/new-jersey/) [### Massachusetts Rank #1280.3% no DMARC · 9,925 carriers](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/massachusetts/) [### North Carolina Rank #1678.2% no DMARC · 9,256 carriers](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/north-carolina/) [### Washington Rank #1178.0% no DMARC · 11,961 carriers](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/washington/) [← 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/).