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?¡