On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 03:37:31PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I think no matter what you say it will reflect negatively on the SPF project
since the only people that will read this messages are the false positives.
Given that, what you've written is pretty good.
Are you sure? Note that the phrase in which SPF is mentioned is quite
positive. I.e. it presents it to the reader as the solution of the problem,
rather than the cause of it.
Ok, in some rocambolesque way, it is the cause since the reason I'm able to do
this kind of rejects is because:
- SPF-related tools aided me in doing a "best-guess" test.
- Without the existance of any verification system such as SPF, this reject
would be impossible to solve, and therefore I wouldn't use it.
but this is not how I present it in the message, at least. That said,
suggestions are welcome of course. Do you think it'd actualy be better if SPF
wasn't mentioned at all?
Stuart Gathman has written about his 3 strikes rule on this list several
times
(see the archives). Although somewhat more complex, I think it is likely to
give a more reasonable result.
I tried to find the reference but all I could find is:
"you must have at least one (valid version) of the three 2821 IDs I check:
PTR, HELO, MFROM (SPF)"
from http://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/spf-discuss/2005-11/msg00255.html
What does this mean?
--
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