On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 07:33 -0700, John Hardin wrote: > ---->snippage
> If checking for +all is justified then checking for */1 through */8 would > probably also be justified, perhaps with firing different rule so that a > different score could be applied. > ---->more snippage > So does that mean it may be legitimate to treat an SPF PASS as "something > bad" if the SPF rule is defined in an "abusive" manner? > I think we'd get more flexibility by calling these something like SPF_PERMISSIVE rather than lumping them into an existing 'bad' category, but it could have the same default score as SPF_FAIL and be linked to the same standard meta-rules. This way the change wouldn't affect default SA behaviour but, if they wish, people can still adjust its score and/or use it as a more specific component meta-rules. Martin
