On Tue, 30 Nov 2021, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On Nov 17, 2021, at 9:50 AM, Bill Cole
wrote:
SpamAssassin rules are not laws in any sense. They do not prescribe or
proscribe any action. They do not reflect any sort of moral or ethical
judgment. They do not express or define technical
On 2021-11-30 at 13:47:36 UTC-0500 (Tue, 30 Nov 2021 11:47:36 -0700)
Philip Prindeville
is rumored to have said:
Hi,
I'm looking at the 0.001 scoring for SPF_NONE and scratching my head.
This was discussed a bit in early 2015, but maybe it needs revisiting
with new perspective.
Surely no
So how is this score arrived at?
I believe that scores of 0.001 are generally manually set, and not intended
to be anything other than a visible marker that the rule hit. That is
probably the case here.
Loren
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 12:03:15PM -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 2021, at 9:50 AM, Bill Cole
> > wrote:
> > SpamAssassin rules are not laws in any sense. They do not prescribe or
> > proscribe any action. They do not reflect any sort of moral or ethical
> > judgment. They do
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:47:36AM -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> I'm looking at the 0.001 scoring for SPF_NONE and scratching my head. This
> was discussed a bit in early 2015, but maybe it needs revisiting with new
> perspective.
SPF is double edged sword. Sure, when it great to
Philip Prindeville writes:
> I'm looking at the 0.001 scoring for SPF_NONE and scratching my head. This
> was discussed a bit in early 2015, but maybe it needs revisiting with new
> perspective.
>
> Surely no one who cares about maintaining their reputation by
> protecting themselves against
> On Nov 17, 2021, at 9:50 AM, Bill Cole
> wrote:
>
> SpamAssassin rules are not laws in any sense. They do not prescribe or
> proscribe any action. They do not reflect any sort of moral or ethical
> judgment. They do not express or define technical correctness.
Isn't that exactly what
Hi,
I'm looking at the 0.001 scoring for SPF_NONE and scratching my head. This was
discussed a bit in early 2015, but maybe it needs revisiting with new
perspective.
Surely no one who cares about maintaining their reputation by protecting
themselves against spoofing would fail to provide SPF
