spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Suggest New Mechanism Prefix NUMBER to Accelerate SPF Adoption

2004-08-25 13:46:09
At 10:26 PM 8/25/2004 +0200, Roger wrote:
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"?

Currently even if my SPF filtered all mail where the SPF result is 'fail',
'softfail' or 'neutral' and even if it used fallbacks for yahoo.com etc.,
only about 0.5% of the mail would be catched by SPF but not by other
filters.


Chicken and egg.  I am saying many ISPs won't even bother with "?all" and they 
can not do "-all" yet.


So currently for my server the performance of SPF is insignificant.


Not a good problem to have.


In the next time it may be increased by a factor of 10 to 5%, but still that
is insignificant.


Good problem to have.

Therefore I will not add probabilities as suggested by
Shelby to my SPF implementation.

Why?  Because you don't want to catch more forgeries?



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>