In <40051B4D(_dot_)1020504(_at_)phase(_dot_)org> Wechsler
<wechsler(_at_)phase(_dot_)org> writes:
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!
Agreed.
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.
This kind of mild negative scoring was what softfail was for. I think
we could bring back ~all without causing backwards incompatibility.
-wayne
-------
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?¡