OT: SPF query

[Pentland G.]

    [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

David Höhn wrote:
<snip>
> To use SPF as a basis for accepting or rejecting mail would be fatal.
> It simply does not work. It would if everyone had valid SPF records
> and if the system itself was flawless (which it is not in my humble
> opinion). You can use SPF to weigh in on the score (I do that for
> example).    
</snip>

IMHO I was thinking...

If a domain has no SPF record then carry on with the other normal checks.
If a domain does have an SPF record and the IP matches etc. then carry on with the other normal checks.
If a domain does have an SPF record and this mail comes from somewhere else then either 450 (TMEP FIAL leading to some sort of greylist) it or 550 it.

would be a valid approach.

Obviously it would be fatal to 550 anything without an SPF record.  I was wondering how many mails I could expect to fall into the 3rd rule so not having to put them though MailScanner so saving CPU time.

Just thinking out loud and thought this list would be a fair place to ask for others experience.

Gary

------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
Before posting, read the MAQ (http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/) and
the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).

Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!