In <200607201537(_dot_)31701(_dot_)scott(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> Scott
Kitterman <scott(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> writes:
On Thursday 20 July 2006 15:09, Robert Millan wrote:
Naturaly, since this isn't really an SPF failure I'm not going to advertise
it as such. I've written the following rejection message:
550-Your message claims [... long message deleted ...]
That message may be too long for some systems. I'm not sure how to
shorten it, with the possible exception of using a URL or something to
point to a longer description.
I think no matter what you say it will reflect negatively on the SPF project
since the only people that will read this messages are the false positives.
Given that, what you've written is pretty good.
Note that Robert was clear that, since best guess *isn't* SPF, he is
not going to say that it is.
Stuart Gathman has written about his 3 strikes rule on this list several
(see the archives). Although somewhat more complex, I think it is likely to
give a more reasonable result.
If I recall both your "three strikes" system and what Robert has
described, I think they are actually very similar. If I recall
correctly, one of your strikes is a bogus HELO domain. If I recall
Robert's system correctly, an SPF PASS will skip the best guess check.
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
please go to