On 2021-11-30 12:24, Greg Troxel wrote:
Lots of people think SPF is silly. And spammers spamming from a domain
they control can even dkim/dmarc.
Domain based reputation is an extremely powerful tool, but it is only
useful when you know the actual sender of a message. The benefit isn't
in blo
Hellow Greg,
Greg Troxel writes:
> [...]
> Lots of people think SPF is silly. And spammers spamming from a domain
> they control can even dkim/dmarc. So I agree that actual data would be
> interesting.
I totally agree with you, thanks!
Sincerely, Byung-Hee
--
^고맙습니다 _地平天成_ 감사합니다_^))//
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 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 authentic
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
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
