> On a system where I manage the SpamAssassin > weights, I gave a hard failure enough weight to take anything > smelling vaguely spammy across the line, and found that over 10% of > the mail stopped by that was probably not spam at all, but rather was > sent by people who set up hard-fail SPF records incorrectly.
Somebody on the SpamAssassin list was indicating that a rule tagging SPF softfail actually hit a lower number of hams than a rule tagging SPF hardfail. I use hardfail at $DAYJOB and haven't had a problem unless my users try to share photos using a web-based service that sends messages "from" you to notify your friends of new pictures. -- Dave Pooser Cat-Herder-in-Chief, Pooserville.com "...Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in one pretty and well-preserved piece, but to slide across the finish line broadside, thoroughly used up, worn out, leaking oil, and shouting GERONIMO!!!" -- Bill McKenna ############################################################# This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list <[email protected]>. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
