Meng,
Would it be difficult for the guess routine to return 'fail' as well as
'pass' and 'neutral'?
Marc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of
marc(_at_)alaia(_dot_)net
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 11:53 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: Re: [spf-discuss] SPF Guess
From: Meng Weng Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com>
Date: 2004/03/16 Tue PM 10:00:30 EST
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] SPF Guess
| >"guess" was designd to produce passes; it was not designed to produce
| fails.
| Would it be difficult to make it work for fails, too? Based on log
| analysis, it would have a hit rate of nearly 80%!
and a false positive rate of ... ?
these kinds of decisions are best left to the local installation.
I agree, and that is how it is configurable. Can it be made to work for
fails, though?
| >the "local" argument may work better for what you want to do. can you
| >try that instead? leave out the "all" directive when you do.
| I don't understand what you mean. Can you direct me to a page for
syntax?
| I can't find anything on 'local' on the Mechanisms or Macros pages....
From the manpage to Mail::SPF::Query
Set "local=>'include:local.domain'" to include some extra process-
ing just before a "-all" or "?all". The local processing happens
just before the trusted processing.
Sorry, Meng. I must be slow tonight. I'm still not getting what you mean
by using 'local'. Can you give me an example?
Thanks,
Marc
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/spf-draft-200403.txt
Wiki: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com