On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:23:44 -0700 Dave Warren <da...@hireahit.com> wrote:
> Huh? Last I looked, somewhere near 80% of my legitimate mail flow > passes SPF. It wouldn't shock me if this has gone higher. That's not what we see. We see quite a lot of legitimate mail that either doesn't have SPF in place at all or hits softfail. Some even hits fail. > While a lot of spam does too, SPF:PASS alone doesn't really mean > anything, No, it does not, but (at least for the mail we see) if SPF:PASS were a Bayes token, it would be slightly on the spammy side, though not extremely strongly. > I'd suggest that SPF:PASS means you can rely on domain based logic > (trusts/whitelists/reputation) rather than only IP based logic, > allowing you to safely whitelist "example.com" without guessing what > IPs example.com uses (and might use tomorrow.) In our commercial service, we have the very mild policy that a sender whitelist or domain whitelist is ignored in the event of SPF softfail or fail. You would not believe the number of support calls we get from clients asking for this to be disabled because their legitimate correspondents have broken SPF. :( Regards, Dianne.
