SPF_Fail score too low?

Nick Phillips nwp at nz.lemon-computing.com
Mon Apr 16 11:16:41 IST 2007

Matt Kettler wrote:

> Sorry for the late reply.
> Real-world testing shows that the SPF_FAIL test is still quite prone to false
> positives, and is more false-positive prone than the SOFTFAIL rule.

> Never expect rules to behave the way they "should" when they're the result of
> human decisions. Humans add a whole layer of randomness and nonsense all their own.

Problem is that by deciding not to take the SPF_FAIL at face value,
*you* are the one adding yet another layer of human randomness - and
this one will make it less likely that the system will ever work
"properly" -- admins whose sites are causing the false positives will be
less likely to ever find out and do something about it etc.

Really. If they say it's a fail, reject it. That's what they're
(politely) asking you to do.



More information about the MailScanner mailing list