hosted gmail did catch some of the spam but not all , into auto junk filter due to some of the weblinks were spammy
Colin > On 27 Oct 2015, at 14:18, Ian Smith <ian.w.sm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm not making any argument about the relation of SPF compliance to message > quality or spam/ham ratio. You are no doubt correct that at this point in > the game SPF doesn't matter with respect to message quality in a larger > context, because these days messages that are not SPF compliant will simply > never arrive, and therefore aren't sent. > > I'm saying that SPF helps prevent envelope header forgery, which is what it > was designed to do. The fact that NANOG isn't checking SPF (and it isn't, > I tested) was exploited and resulted in a lot of spam to the list. This > wasn't caught by receiving servers (like Gmail's, for example) because they > checked mail.nanog.org against the nanog.org spf record, which checked out. > > You can argue that envelope header forgery is irrelevant, and that corner > cases don't matter. But I think this latest incident provides a good > counterexample that it does matter. And it's easy to fix, so why not fix > it? > > -Ian