> On 06.10.07 11:51, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote: > > I checked on this email. My system is right: it is an spf soft-fail. At > > this point, ninety nine percent of people who set up SPF are going to be > > setting ~all and not understanding the difference between ~all and -all. > > And this did constitute a fail (i.e. a forgery), but there's no rule that > > hit. > > > > We've had the debate before, that SPF alone should not stop spam, but here > > it is: a legitimate domain hijack and SA isn't hitting?
On 06.10.07 18:04, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > afaik the (I left this one for explaining later, and then forgot to do it) afaik the scores are assigned automatically, see http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/HowScoresAreAssigned however SPF_SOFTFAIL does not even mean that the message sender is fake (and I don't this time care if the admin knows how SPF should be configured) so the score should not hit too much... -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. "Two words: Windows survives." - Craig Mundie, Microsoft senior strategist "So does syphillis. Good thing we have penicillin." - Matthew Alton
