On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 03:43 -0700, David MacQuigg wrote:
At 06:18 AM 12/28/2007 +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
I got word from an authoritative source within Google that they
generally do NOT reject on SPF Fail.
Hm... :-(
They reject for a few other reasons, such as the SMTP sender
being a dynamically allocated IP address (which seems to
be what Frank observed)
Kind of odd that they bother to receive the DATA when the sender
is a dynamic IP producing an SPF FAIL. Google re-inventing tar-
pitting makes no sense, so do they want the DATA for logging, or
for Googlebot ? <g>
SPF Fail contributes as a factor to their spam decision, though.
Let's hope that folks *forwarding* their mail to Gmail look into
their spam folder at least once. Gmail also offers to poll POP3
mailboxes, and so "traditional forwarding" should be rarely used.
Good point. We need to educate folks on this.
I'm very pessimistic about "accept SPF FAIL" strategies, they're
at odds with SPF FAIL design principles.
My guess is that Google is seeing a significant amount of "ham" in the SPF
rejects. Otherwise, they would not be wasting the resources to transfer the
data.
If we want to persuade Google and perhaps a lot of others to follow SPF
design principles, we'll need data on real mailflows. What percent of SPF
fails are spam? It may be lower than we think, assuming spammers are paying
attention to SPF records.
Maybe we could post this data on Greg HewGill's http://spf-all.com.
How can I post data to spf-all.com
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=2183229&id_secret=79870319-929a4c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com