-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
gmc(_at_)metro(_dot_)cx writes:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 10:19:36PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com wrote:
Wrong again. And the proof is that there are many domains that implement
SPF, successfully.
Most them are spammers.
May we see some proof of that please? And with proof i don't mean that
report that is by now almost a year old and which was found to be
incorrect a while ago.
FWIW, here's the results of a check of 54725 spams and 6680 nonspam mails,
from SpamAssassin's weekly mass-check of network rules (at
http://www.pathname.com/~corpus/NET.age ).
All these messages were received less than 1 month ago, and are taken from
5 people's hand-classified corpora.
SPF records passing HELO strings: 4.98% of spam, 13.29% of ham
SPF records passing the MAIL FROM: 3.72% spam, 18.90% of ham
So it certainly looks like that statement is untrue.
- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS
iD8DBQFB+n3vMJF5cimLx9ARArLTAJ4o+rkTSylsGguBszWvmDvggew+MQCeJFux
UwoKM1L2LRp6aQ03oPyLPRI=
=GulZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----