On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 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
The +2 for softfail is reasonable, but I don't think that SPF pass by itself
should affect spam score. Spammers have no problem with publishing SPF. SPF
prevents forgery, not spam. While a forgery is likely to be criminal spam, an
SPF pass is actually *more* likely to be semi-legit/sleazy spam due to the fast
uptake of SPF in the spam community. (I posted some actual stats from my
server a while back.) What SPF enables is rejecting forgeries and whitelisting
with confidence via SPF pass.
You should keep stats on spam/ham vs SPF/pass to see if I'm right.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.