Re: SPF deployment, was RFC 3929 on Alternative Decision ...

On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 09:45 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:

> After DNSBLs, SPF is my most successful spam filter.  Here's my 
> latest mail report (# of messages rejected/reason).
>
> 7951  550 User unknown.
> 6182  517 HELO mismatch
> 1310  502 ESMTP command error
> 1171  511 Blocked by www.spambag.org : Blocked
> 839   517 Sender Policy Framework error
> 81    551 DNS lookup failure
> 74    558-500-sam:558 500 Message rejected by recipient's mail filter (BCC).
> 67    Connection timed out
> 35    500 Microsoft virus refused.
> 22    550-The headers in this message contain improperly-formatted binary…
> 21    513 Relaying denied.
> 21    550-This message contains improperly-formatted binary content…
> 20    550-This message contains text that uses unnecessary base64…
> 14    517 Syntax error.
> <= 10 79 errors for 44 types
>
>
> SPF blocks ten times more spam than the next most common spam filter.  Also, 
> a fairly good portion of the "HELO mismatch" rejects would've probably been 
> caught by the SPF checks too.
>
> I have occasional reports of false positives, but they were related to other 
> causes.  No false positives reported for SPF.
I'm curious about your "error".  These are FAIL, SOFTFAIL, UNKNOWN,
ERROR or ?.  I'd appreciate any clarification you can specify here.

Cheers,

James

-- 
James Couzens,
Programmer
                                                     ( ( (      
      ((__))         __\|/__        __|-|__        '. ___ .'    
       (00)           (o o)          (0~0)        '  (> <) '    
---nn-(o__o)-nn---ooO--(_)--Ooo--ooO--(_)--Ooo---ooO--(_)--Ooo---
http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A7C7DCF

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part