Meng Weng Wong wrote:
I'm guessing SpamAssassin will distinguish between
- fail
- unknown (record exists)
- unknown (record does not exist)
and score the first very negatively and the second slightly negatively.
NO! No, no, and indeed NO!
If I've not clarified myself enough there, NO! This is a very very bad idea.
It is ESSENTIAL that a ?all record fares no worse than no record in spam
checking, otherwise publishing SPF records INCREASES the likelihood that
some of a domain's outgoing mail will be treated as spam, and people
will refuse to implement it.
I now have about a dozen friends and colleagues covering a far larger
number of domains who are prepared to implement SPF. This lies entirely
on my assertions that publishing SPF records will not harm the
"reputation" of any ?all mails.
If this is not the case, they (and, I would expect, many more) will
REFUSE to publish records.
Please EXCUSE the capitalisation, but I cannot make the above point
firmly enough. And I may be channeling ziggy...
Wechsler
-------
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?¡