On 24 Jan 2018, at 9:12, David Jones wrote:
What does everyone think about slowly increasing the score for
SPF_NONE and SPF_FAIL over time in the SA rulesets to force the
awareness and importance of proper SPF?
-1
In every real mailstream I've worked with in the lifetime of SPF, lack
of SPF has *always* had a correlation with ham, not spam.
SPF hard failures are a more complicated case because the sort of spam
that hits SPF_FAIL tends to come from IPs that show up in good DNSBLs
within a few minutes, making it hard for a site using DNSBLs to know how
much of it there is. With that caveat, I see more ham hitting SPF_FAIL
than I do spam where SPF_FAIL (which I have locally nailed at 2.0) is a
decisive factor. Most SPF_FAIL spam scores well into double digits here.
