> > 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,
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 01:13:48PM +0000, Dan Boresjo wrote:
> 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.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 07:32:01AM -0800, Thomas R. Stephenson wrote:
I assume then that you'll be applying this same small negative score to
those who don't use the SPF at all.
--Alex van den Bogaerdt <alex(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net> wrote:
Then you did not understand what I was saying. I am saying that
"?all" may mean something different than "".
"?all" _may_ (not: should) be reason to DECREASE the likelihood some
mail is spam. The site administrator is telling you that it is
possible, though less likely, that mail originates from somewhere
out of his control.
Actually I think you are all in agreement. In Spamassassin a "negative"
score means "less likely to be spam".
Basically that means publishing an SPF record at all, even just ?all,
indicates that you care enough to do so. After all, if forgery becomes
much of a problem on your domain you would probably remove the ?all. So
maybe it's worth a slight bonus, and if it gives people an additional
incentive to publish, great!
I wouldn't want to make it a BIG bonus, or we might see spammer domains
putting ?all everywhere just to get the boost (or worse, seeking out
everyone who has ?all already and forging them)
The REAL benefit of an SPF record comes when your mail passes the check
rather than being unknown (such as mail from your actual MX). This is the
real goal: to give a boost to verified non-forged mail. If there is a
bonus for "spf published, but result was unknown" it will definitely be
smaller.
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>
-------
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?¡