In <0HRW00FSOEF3K4(_at_)lmco(_dot_)com> "Thomas R. Stephenson"
<tstephen(_at_)mtshasta(_dot_)lmms(_dot_)lmco(_dot_)com> writes:
On 22 Jan 2004 ty lammy <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com> wrote:
[...] When I was rejecting i'd estimate 95%
of the invalid EHLOs were spam.
Is a 5% false alarm rate acceptable to the users? management? anybody?
That is 5% false positive rate for those systems that send invalid
HELO strings. If, say, 5% off all email comes from such mailers, then
the overall false positive rate would be only 0.25%. That *may* be
low enough for many people (not for me), but it could likely be
reduced further by local whitelistings of known sources of good email
from badly configured machines.
-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?¡