-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes: > Brian Taber wrote: > > As for the scores, score of 0 for PASS makes perfect sense, but a FAIL > > should receive at least the same score as a SOFTFAIL, because a FAIL means > > the email is definately from a forged sender (on the other hand the FAIL > > may be because the person who created the SPF records had no idea what > > they were doing)... catch 22.... oh well.... > > When the 3.0 scoring mass-checks were done a lot of ham (more than the > SPF_SOFTFAIL) hit SPF_FAIL, hence the low score. > > I expect the reason this happened was because of old ham in people's > corpus that no longer matched various domains' SPF records due to > changes in their networks (and of course the occasional screwup by the > publishing domain). > > I'd expect that this week's 3.1 scoring mass-check will show that the > score can be increased slightly, but probably not by a lot. yep. fingers crossed. (we should really attempt to only use SPF records from --reuse mass-checks.) There is still the SPF-vs-forwarder issue that SES/SRS was created to resolve, too. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFCyyFoMJF5cimLx9ARAvlLAKCcCVJmRzmGwBfiyQ4EvlbLGT8YZgCfUvin UJIBCdzNWGejmRFhnDX2078= =anfE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
