In
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)60(_dot_)0410071053020(_dot_)10769(_at_)hermes-1(_dot_)csi(_dot_)cam(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>
Tony Finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> writes:
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Frank Ellermann wrote:
what do you think SPF does without a -all ?
You can't use SPF to reject even with a -all, because it'll reject too
much legitimate email.
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mailsig/mail-archive/msg00286.html
I don't know where Rand Wacker got the 20% false-postive rate for SPF
fail, but it doesn't match any of the data I've seen. Rand appears to
pull these numbers out of thin air.
Maybe they are based off of SenderID checking, which I could believe.
The data that Mark Lentczner and Andy Newton on the reliablity of
SenderID and the PRA showed a very high error rate, but I don't think
it was even as high as Rand quotes.
Sounds like FUD to me.
-wayne