> [re: net-daf] bizarre... all spam? Duncan had something weird going on with blank messages or something like that. Maybe he should disable nightly runs until it's fixed.
I suspect some of his failures are for the same reason as mine, see below. > [re: net-jm] fails are good, passes suck. As expected. > [re: net-quinlan] not terrific. Most of my failures are historical. SPF records unfortunately specify "now", not "then". > since SPF isn't a spam indicator, just a forgery indicator, as long as > the hits are valid, I'm ok with the results? can people double check > so we can either fix things or close the ticket? I'm not sure what we should do about failures. This might be a case where we have to avoid using the GA and go with human set scores, initially very low until SPF is more generally reliable. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan anti-spam (SpamAssassin), Linux, http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ and open source consulting
