[Mark Shewmaker]
(As an aside, 50 is a clear midpoint between 0 and 100. You're supposed
to always have odd numbers of points so people immediately know how to
chose a midpoint. So [1,2,3,4] is out, but [1,2,3,4,5] can work.)
(I don't much care what the number range would be, just that it makes
sense in context.)
I've no probs with 0-100 range.
However, if for some reason you did want such a statement, you could do
so by convincing spamcop.net to allow for evaluations such as:
"v=spf1 -exists:%{l}.greaterthan1250.comparison-bl.spamcop.net ~all"
The functionality you're after can be had without any extensions to the
spf spec. (Though I still don't see the point in it.)
Point ?
DNS caching.
{1}.greaterthan1250.comparison-bl.spamcop.net
{1}.greaterthan2345.comparison-bl.spamcop.net
will result in two queries cached (and two cache misses)
While
{1}.bl.spamcop.net will result in single query and aggresively cached.
As for a reason - little spamming rating can be always assigned randomly to
my users.
For example via_gra(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com will have spamming rating 95,
while joe_user(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com can have rating 5 becouse of some kind of
misunderstanding.
I would like to indicate that all users who have realy bad reputaion in
provider who I trust are probably spammers and everybody must be aware on
this.
But I can not terminate user account becouse I'm not yet 100% if he is realy
spamming or this is misunderstanding.
I do not wanna to pay high legal fees if my client will sue me on agreement
termination.
As well I do not wanna to be marked as ISP supporting spammers.
--
Andriy G. Tereshchenko
TAG Software
Odessa, Ukraine
http://www.24.odessa.ua