spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

followup on SPF mass-check

2003-12-17 01:14:35
Interestingly, using HELO data is more reliable on the FAIL side:

  0.023   0.0000   0.0306    0.000   1.00   -0.10  T_SPF_PASS
  0.125   0.4394   0.0153    0.966   0.89    0.20  T_SPF_FAIL

Compare with the envelope-from data:

  3.433   0.0000   4.6298    0.000   1.00   -0.10  T_SPF_PASS
  1.762   0.4399   2.2229    0.165   0.00    0.20  T_SPF_FAIL

So it may be possible to ameliorate the problem by not returning an SPF FAIL
unless a followup check on the hostname used in the HELO string also fails.

(Note that the HELO T_SPF_FAIL is still hitting 0.4394% of spam compared
to 0.4399% with envfrom, without all but 1 of the FPs, and that FP was
a buggy SPF string.)

--j.

-------
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?¡


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • followup on SPF mass-check, Justin Mason <=