The URL does not say -all would fail 20% of good email. It says 80% is 1
hop and would pass spf and senderid type path check.
Big difference! People will not publish -all if it would cause failed
emails.
Guy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of Tony
Finch
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 10:37 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: [SPF Classic] Policy best practices should be
kept out
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, wayne wrote:
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.
He got them from AOL:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mailsig/mail-archive/msg00284.html
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> http://dotat.at/
ST DAVIDS HEAD TO COLWYN BAY, INCLUDING ST GEORGES CHANNEL: WEST OR
NORTHWEST
4 OR 5 DECREASING 3 BY EVENING, VEERING NORTHEAST 3 OR 4 OVERNIGHT. FAIR.
GOOD. MODERATE DECREASING SLIGHT.
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features
SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com