spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways?

2004-02-10 19:38:54
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


"Richard Bollinger" writes:
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Justin Mason" <jm(_at_)jmason(_dot_)org>
...SpamAssassin does ;)   in the dev tree currently.

So... anyone know to you turn it on?  I don't see anything in the CVS version 
which refer to
SPF... just functions to evaluate spf in lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/EvalTests.pm

well, currently it uses these rules:

header T_SPF_PASS       eval:check_for_spf_pass()
tflags T_SPF_PASS       net nice
score T_SPF_PASS        -0.1
header T_SPF_FAIL       eval:check_for_spf_fail()
tflags T_SPF_FAIL       net
score T_SPF_FAIL        0.2
header T_SPF_SOFTFAIL   eval:check_for_spf_softfail()
tflags T_SPF_SOFTFAIL   net
score T_SPF_SOFTFAIL    0.1

header T_SPF_HELO_PASS  eval:check_for_spf_helo_pass()
tflags T_SPF_HELO_PASS  net nice
score T_SPF_HELO_PASS   -0.1
header T_SPF_HELO_FAIL  eval:check_for_spf_helo_fail()
tflags T_SPF_HELO_FAIL  net
score T_SPF_HELO_FAIL   0.2
header T_SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL      eval:check_for_spf_helo_softfail()
tflags T_SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL      net
score T_SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL       0.1

Note, they're in testing, so if you picked up the tarball they
will not be in there (that rules file isn't tarred up).  Copying
those above lines will work fine, though.

Note also they use 0.1 scores, by default.

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFAKZW+QTcbUG5Y7woRAtMmAJ9G5W/kwEXIdJktvHYb3hYPi88JrgCgj7uA
8SOSTldvmQGNNXwBm8FE1q0=
=cxJ9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>