Yes. Better.
Scott Kitterman
...... Original Message .......
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 22:51:36 -0400 <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