SPF

[William Burns]

<x-flowed>
Joshua:

I disagree..
Any sending domain that configured SPF and then became a spammer, would
find itself blacklisted pretty quickly.
The (admittedly minimal) cost of configuring a domain in the first place
should be a deterrant to spammers using valid SPF servers.
I think that's worth at least a small negative Spam Assassin value.

If you're NOT going to assign a negative Spam Assassin value for SPF
servers, then why SPF enable Spam Assassin at all?

-Bill

Hirsh, Joshua wrote:

>>2. MailScanner gets message from Sendmail, passes message to SpamAssassin
>>for processing. SpamAssassin checks SPF records, assign arbitrary negative
>>number (say, -2.0) if SPF records check out ok, otherwise process as
>>
>>
>usual.
>
> Personally, I wouldn't assign a negative value to any email with a proper
>SPF record. It's still very easy for a spammer to setup a domain and publish
>SPF records that make all addresses valid. If that happened, the message
>would hit your server and possibly make it through unscathed because of the
>added negative value..
>
>

-------------------------- MailScanner list ----------------------
To leave, send    leave mailscanner    to jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk
Before posting, please see the Most Asked Questions at
http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/     and the archives at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html
</x-flowed>