Assess a suspected sender impersonation
Give an analyst a structured view of a message that may imitate a trusted sender.
Gmail or OutlookIllustrative providers; availability unverified
Illustrative idea, not a published runnable template. Grunt is prelaunch; live service is paused and live provider connections and outcomes remain unverified. The steps, providers, and outcomes below describe a concept.
Gather the routing information and sender-authentication results from an email, then organize relevant connection and location context. Keep the original header evidence visible so an analyst can assess possible spoofing without treating an automated result as a verdict.
Actual availability depends on published steps, supported connections, permissions, and provider approval.
“Organize sending-address details and authentication results, summarize notable discrepancies, and hold any security conclusion for analyst review.”
Clear tasks, with review where it matters.
Helps an email security team review where a message appears to come from and whether its sender-authentication checks align.
Header details can be incomplete, misleading, or affected by forwarding. Review the original message and full authentication results; an analyst must determine whether spoofing is likely and approve any incident, block request, or recipient notice.
Select an illustrative task to explore its proposed role. No workflow runs here.
Retain the complete routing and authentication information along with the message context needed for review.
Organize addresses and relevant routing observations, keeping their positions and original values available to the analyst.
Summarize whether the message’s sender checks passed, failed, or could not be confirmed, preserving the reported result for each check.
Highlight differences between the apparent sender and observed route, and note when forwarding or incomplete information may explain them.
Require an analyst to verify the evidence and approve any incident record, blocking request, or communication before it proceeds.
Retain the complete routing and authentication information along with the message context needed for review.
These are planning notes for the concept, not instructions for a currently available template.
Define which submitted emails are reviewed and retain the original header values needed for assessment.
Agree how each sender check is presented and how missing, neutral, or conflicting outcomes should be described.
Name who assesses possible spoofing and who may approve incidents, protective changes, or recipient communication.
Check direct, forwarded, failed-authentication, and incomplete-header examples to ensure results remain evidence for a person to assess.
Published templates and verified customer availability remain pending.
Explore the sample experience while launch details are being finalized.
View pricing status Explore the simulation