https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6490
--- Comment #39 from Mark Martinec <[email protected]> 2011-05-11 19:05:28 UTC --- (In reply to comment #35) > > I've added the disabled rule for spf_none to v340.pre in trunk. > You shouldn't add rules, even disabled, to .pre files. I fully agree. A .pre file is for plugins and possibly for fixing some other anomaly, not for rules or scores. Re-opened the Bug 6526 for this same reason. (In reply to comment 37) > As the author: I am satisfied with the code which was committed. > There are no existing rules which are affected by this change. Furthermore, > because it is debatable whether an unauthenticated sender should be penalized, > I suggested a "SPF_NONE" rule in the OP with a zero score. This need not > actually be added to the formal ruleset for that reason. Agreed. I don't feel any need for adding the SPF_NONE to the formal ruleset, even with score 0 or even when commented out - let alone be left to float. It should suffice for the infrastructure support to be there, in case someone really needs it. SPF may be beneficial for sites that only send direct mail, but it should not be forced onto sites whose users post to arbitrary destinations, like third party forwarders or mailing list, over which a site has no control and which may or may note implement SRS. Also Daryl's concern about testing for the handling of DNS failures is still unproven. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
