https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5684
--- Comment #16 from John Wilcock <[email protected]> 2010-11-16 02:40:49 UTC --- (In reply to comment #15) > I am of the opinion that this is a poor approach. The condition should not be > whether the SPF record contains a "+all" but that such a mechanism is the > reason why a "pass" result is generated. > > Consider: "v=spf1 a mx all". > > Clearly, if the "a" or "mx" mechanism is the reason for the passing result, > there is nothing "funny" going on here, despite having a "+all" in the record. The mere fact of having a +all, whether or not it is the mechanism used to pass SPF, could be a spam sign anyway. I could imagine it being an indicator similar in impact to, say, FREEMAIL_FROM, and useful to SA at least as a component of metarules. But this is just a postulate; I've no idea whether current usage bears this out. Passing SPF only by virtue of a +all (or similarly all-inclusive pattern) could be another spam sign; I'd expect, again without having checked the actual data, that it would be a more discriminant spam sign. Adding the SPF data in a pseudo-header would be a nice first step towards collecting some real world statistics here... -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
