On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 20:17 +0100, RW wrote: > On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 20:39:24 +0200 > Robert Schetterer wrote: > > > in my case > > there is so less left, passing postscreen, rbls, greylisting, > > clamav-milter with sanesecurity and few other smtp checks, that nearly > > null i.e > > faked paypal mail getting at last to spamassassin where its stopped > > mostly by other rules and rejected by spamass-milter, so using spf > > check isnt hardly needed anymore, > > His point was that SPF isn't there to catch spam, it there to identify > legitimate mail from selected domains, and prevent it being falsely > identified as spam. > And, at least for me, its been good for suppressing backscatter: since I've had a good SPF record I've has almost none. That is all I use it for.
Martin
