Joe Emenaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How come. Unless you give a bonus to SPF pass, then there's no real
> incentive for legit domains to use it (until people start rejecting
> SPF fails... ).
We give points to SPF fails, so the incentive (in SpamAssassin) is that
forged mail using your dom
On 7 Sep 2004 Joe Emenaker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
By the same token, the point was never to be able to spot spammers by noting
who isn't using SPF. Rather, the point is to make the blacklists more
reliable. It is *only* when you use SPF in *conjunction* with
blacklists/whitelists that you se
> How come. Unless you give a bonus to SPF pass, then there's no real
> incentive for legit domains to use it (until people start
> rejecting SPF
> fails... ). The idea that spammers can pass SPF doesn't bother me at
> all, since I know that it will make the blacklists that much more
> effecti
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
Joe Emenaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Although others have already given reasons why, I figured I'd toss in
the analogy to explain why the dude from CypherTrust in the article is
lacking in clue:
The SpamAssassin development team has been aware of SPF pass results
Joe Emenaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Although others have already given reasons why, I figured I'd toss in
> the analogy to explain why the dude from CypherTrust in the article is
> lacking in clue:
The SpamAssassin development team has been aware of SPF pass results for
spam since May (a
