Hi!
Given that all the ham I've received to the date seems to pass SPF "best-guess",
and most spam seems to fail it, I'm considering rejecting mail that fails to
pass a "best-guess" check.
Naturaly, since this isn't really an SPF failure I'm not going to advertise it
as such. I've written the following rejection message:
550-Your message claims to come from example.com, but it is actually originated
550-in 101.102.103.104, which is in a completely different network than any of
550-example.com's A or MX hosts. This suggests that your message is a forgery
550-attempt. If this is legitimate mail, please consider routing it through
550-any of example.com's mail servers, or publishing an SPF record in your
550 domain to authenticate 101.102.103.104 as a valid sender.
Any comments/suggestions/etc ? Do you think it's a good idea ? Is there
anything that could be changed in this message to make it impact more positively
in the image of SPF?
Thanks,
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is honeypot(_at_)aybabtu(_dot_)com(_dot_) Note: this address is
only intended for
spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
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