Chris Drake wrote:
DT> We are having _really_ good results with SPFv1 so far.
DT> 2 months ago our e-mail was nearly unusable for the spam.
SPF's got practically nothing to do with spam - it just tells you when
someone faked a sender IF the sending domain happens to have SPF in
their DNS TXT records (rare - and even rarer that spammers would pick
one of these domains) - so - I'm guessing you're confusing SPF with
something else?
Not so rare, they are using us and sending to us. No confusion, I'm
using SPF as a tool in combination with Mimedefang and Spamassassin.
Between the Bayesian filter and a couple of custom rules I rigged
up in Spamassassin it helps. A lot.
If I'm wrong - please enlighten me: what on earth are you talking
about? "50% SPF rejectable"??? Are you rejecting people because they
*don't* have SPF records? sounds hard to believe you'd get no false
positives?
Most of the rejects are "From" us, probably worms or spam zombie
machines doing their work. Most of the valid e-mail we receive is
still SPF-none, but enough has SPF info on it to be useful for
spam filtering and avoiding false positives.
The volume is appropriate for what we have been seeing in worm and
spam traffic. Like I said, our e-mail was approaching unusable
for all the junk in it.
Avoiding false positives from AOL and Earthlink subscribers
helps us a lot, since we have business relationships with many
people who use such accounts.
--
Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc.
dtaylor(_at_)vocalabs(_dot_)com http://www.vocalabs.com/
(952)941-6580x203