On 06/12/17 02:45, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > On December 5, 2017 10:35:50 AM EST, Daniel Pocock <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I received feedback from somebody that my mail server wasn't accepting >> messages from one of their servers because of this issue. >> >> I manually changed my settings to the new value and I notice that >> additional spam is now getting through. >> >> Maybe it is better to be strict and expect non-spammers to use SPF >> correctly. > > This is fixed in stable, so not sure why you unarchived the bug. > > Personally, I thought the old default was reasonable, but too many people > whined. > > What is it you want to have happen? >
The old default (in jessie) was stricter and potentially reduces the amount of spam. The old default also reduces the number of good messages that are received, but the sender receives a bounce telling them why their message couldn't be delivered with a helpful link to help them understand how to fix their SPF entry in DNS. If it went back to a stricter default, the people who whined can manually whitelist senders with bad/missing SPF records or override the default. At this stage, I'm not asking to reopen the bug or change the default again immediately, I think it may be useful to gather more data on the issue to see if there are other opinions and also compare against other distributions and public mail services. Regards, Daniel
