Philip Prindeville <philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com> 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 spoofing would fail to provide SPF > records... So how is this score arrived at? > > And of Ham, how much of it has a valid SPF? > > And of Spam, how much of it lacks a valid SPF? > > Has anyone run some numbers?
I see 0.001 as a score that says: this might be a spam sign, we don't know, and this way it shows up in reports, without really affecting anything. 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.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
