In <40CD5247(_dot_)307(_at_)teddy(_dot_)ch> Teddy <teddy(_at_)teddy(_dot_)ch>
writes:
So I also reject ?all and ~all. I don't need these viruses in my inbox.
I think this is a very bad idea. It is *very* important for domain
owners to be able to test the waters by publishing an SPF record with
?all without fear that they will be treated any differently than if
they didn't publish SPF records at all. Unless you are willing to
reject on "none" also, you shouldn't reject on "neutral" or "unknown".
With the perl M:S:Q and with libspf-alt, you can create "override" SPF
records to special case folks like AOL and GMX and have them use -all
instead of ?all. You can also use these features to (locally) create
SPF record for folks like hotmail, yahoo and msn.
-wayne