On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 07:32:01AM -0800, Thomas R. Stephenson wrote:
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 10:34 am, Wechsler wrote:
It is ESSENTIAL that a ?all record fares no worse than no record in
spam
checking, otherwise publishing SPF records INCREASES the likelihood
that
some of a domain's outgoing mail will be treated as spam, and people
will refuse to implement it.
Even better: the ?all record indicates the domain owner _knows_ it is
quite possible that mail will arrive from unknown MTAs. After all,
if the domain owner is certain that this is not the case, there's no
need not to use "-all".
_If_ a scoring system is applied, I think it _may_ be all right to
apply a (albeit small) negative score (as in: less probably spam).
This, or a zero delta has to be applied but it is most certainly not
a positive sign something is spam.
I assume then that you'll be applying this same small negative score to
those who don't use the SPF at all.
Then you did not understand what I was saying. I am saying that
"?all" may mean something different than "".
"?all" _may_ (not: should) be reason to DECREASE the likelihood some
mail is spam. The site administrator is telling you that it is
possible, though less likely, that mail originates from somewhere
out of his control.
Alex
--
begin sig
http://www.googlism.com/index.htm?ism=alex+van+den+bogaerdt&type=1
This message was produced without any <iframe tags
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡