On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 01:13:48PM +0000, Dan Boresjo wrote:
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 10:34 am, Wechsler wrote:
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.
Agreed. I see the unknown result as meaning 'fallback to vanilla SMTP', so it
is the same as having no SPF record.
There is no logical reason to interpret it differently, and every reason not
to.
Even better: the ?all record indicates the domain owner _knows_ it is
quite possible that mail will arrive from unknown MTAs. After all,
if the domain owner is certain that this is not the case, there's no
need not to use "-all".
_If_ a scoring system is applied, I think it _may_ be all right to
apply a (albeit small) negative score (as in: less probably spam).
This, or a zero delta has to be applied but it is most certainly not
a positive sign something is spam.
cheers,
Alex
--
begin sig
http://www.googlism.com/index.htm?ism=alex+van+den+bogaerdt&type=1
This message was produced without any <iframe tags
-------
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?¡