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

--On 13 October 2009 08:41:54 -0400 "Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com> 
wrote:
> 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
Right, but you wouldn't given them a positive reputatation score would you? 
Say, to reduce spamassassin score on the domain name (+DKIM verification) 
alone?
> 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)
We do that. We don't quarantine anything: if we don't like it, we reject it 
at smtp time, otherwise we deliver it with spamassassin comments added, so 
that users can filter if they wish. Above a certain threshold, though, we 
simply reject.
> 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.


--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/


-------------------------------------------
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