Thanks to Darin and Sandy.
-d
- Original Message -
From: Darin Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Issues
I believe the consensus has been that SPF Pass is not good to use in
negative weighting, but SPF
If nothing else, we catch a good bit of spam and viruses that forge our
email addresses by using SPF.
I have found, that so, far, the BEST usage for SPF, as stated above, is that
it's catching spam that has spoofed my own domain's address.
Sharyn
We are the worldwide producer and marketer of
Thanks, Sharyn
-d
- Original Message -
From: Sharyn Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:38 AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Issues
If nothing else, we catch a good bit of spam and viruses that forge our
email addresses by using SPF
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
Has anybody else done this? What are you all seeing with SPF?
Most don't score SPFPASS. Suggest you follow suit and only work with
failures.
--Sandy
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
Broadleaf Systems, a division of
Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc.
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
