-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Terry Fielder wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
I'd rather just say that "GMail does not reject on SPF Fail but uses
it in their spam decision". Something like that. Forget the
evidence -- given the facts, it's of little interest.
No, please don't "forget the evidence". Leave it there, somewhere,
perhaps a link to the detail evidence on a separate page to reduce
clutter. But things can change, and so the claim based on current
evidence must be documented as substantiated because after all systems
are subject to change without notice.
The thing is, the current "claim" isn't based on empirical evidence such
as a few SMTP transactions. It's based on a statement by an authorita-
tive source within Google. Proving through empirical evidence that GMail
never rejects due to SPF Fail is equally as difficult as is proving
through empirical evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't
exist. That's why I decided to ask the GMail people in the first place.
More importantly though, do we really want to create a list of case
studies for all the big ESPs out there including detailed evidence for
their SPF-related behavior? If not, why do so for Google/GMail?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHdRhBwL7PKlBZWjsRAjYUAJ4yEwool+M7pQrz98yBWSqZ6inNeQCeJqed
UCScrJjFkw036FvwZIOYZGg=
=2cQX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------------------------------------
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=79941720-13459b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com