If you apply pass --> -3: Spammers who implement SPF can then use their
published SPF to try to get past your other spamassassin rule weights.
Move it towards rejection for a failure (indicating probably forgery),
but moving it to less rejection based solely on SPF Pass: Bad idea.
I think you would be best advised to use SPF PASS to then apply the
domain to reputation listings (which I believe there are no real good
ones yet, but hope to be corrected :)
Terry
dejanspf(_at_)ztbclan(_dot_)com wrote:
Sorry, this is bad definition, I have problem to balance some other mechanism which afect
indirectly spamassasin, to explain better should be :
pass -> -3 spamassasin score
softfail -> +2 spamassasin score
neutral -> 0 spamassasin score
- fail is fail -> rejected
- pass -> -1 spamassasin score
- softfail -> +4 spamassasin score
- neutral -> +2 spamassasin score
But please don't give a bad score for NEUTRAL. It's supposed to be
just
like no SPF at all.
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper! http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
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
--
Terry Fielder
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Associate Director Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
Fax: (416) 441-9085
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper! http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
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