I believe the consensus has been that SPF Pass is not good to use in negative weighting, but SPF Fail helps. If nothing else, we catch a good bit of spam and viruses that forge our email addresses by using SPF. As it gets more widely adopted, it will help more. There is still the drawback for weak SPF criteria for those who may send through alternate ISP mail servers, though.
Darin. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Doherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 4:36 PM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Issues 1) Now that AOL passes SPF, I'm getting more junk from them. So I lowered SPFPass to -3 to offset AOL's normal failure of noabuse (1) and nopostmaster (2). 2) We're starting to see real spammers passing SPF. So now I'm thinking of dropping SPFPASS altogether, and using SPFFAIL to help identify spoofs. Has anybody else done this? What are you all seeing with SPF? -Dave Doherty Skywaves, Inc. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
