Re: [spf-discuss] SPF, DKIM, and NIH

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Ian Eiloart wrote:

> Nobody would be daft enough to assign anything but neutral reputation to the
> gmail.com domain, would they?
While gmail.com has so far managed to keep spammers under enough control
to avoid a seriously bad reputation on my system, other free email domains,
like comcast, have reputations so bad they are rejected outright by default.
Individual senders can be whitelisted.  This is not daft.  If they were
not rejected outright by default, the quarantine would be so full of
crap, the rare false positive from content filtering would have even
less chance of being noticed.

One strategy I'm considering is to start rejecting content filtered
email (at end of message) instead of quarantining it for a domain with bad
reputation.  This would at least give the occasional legit sender at comcast a
chance to have their mail delivered, would still avoid too much quarantined
junk, and a rejected legit sender would get a 5xx just like now.

-- 
              Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
    Business Management Systems Inc.  Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com