----- Original Message -----
From: "AccuSpam" <support(_at_)accuspam(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 4:13 PM
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate
SPF Adoption
At 03:41 PM 8/25/2004 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Before we plunge off on this tangent again, is there anyone out there
writing an SPF parser that would make any use of this "added
information"?
Hoping for a "yes" answer, because I think it is "must do even if I am too
busy" because as you can see from previous post:
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200408/1072.html
That the large ISP has no choice but to set "?all" (useless setting),
because anything other than "-all" will get all kinds of incorrect
mathematical assumptions, which will lead to false positives. If it takes
years for ISPs to transistion to "-all" (100% confidence), then SPF is held
back for years in useless state (for email from those ISPs).
This is not necessarily true. SpamAssassin 3.0, for example includes scoring
the SPF fields. It lacks the computation and bandwidth benefits of rejecting
the spam from the start, but it's handy nonetheless. It can be particularly
used to offset the whitelist score for messages allegedly from your own
domain.
Log analysis of the SMTP server can also reveal sites that have patterns of
forging email and should be banned outright or is virus-laden and the
administrators should be contacted, or even reveal SPF violations of
outgoing email that should lead to contacting the on-site sender.
Do you want me to give an example based on the data in that post above?
I, for one, would like you to shush for a week and learn something instead
of spewing incorrect assumptions that have been hashed out repeatedly and
are mostly explained on the website.