On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 11:51, Codger wrote:
> But still, my recommendation is to use an SPF pass to decrease the spam
> score and to not use SFP fails to blacklist.
You're still misinterpreting my idea.
1) a message passes SPF (sender verified);
2) SA classifies the message as spam;
3) something looks up corresponding SPF record and blacklists or
high-scores the servers listed in the SPF record.
SPF Fails don't enter into it at all.
The assumption was that spammers would list all hosts from which they
send spam, so that would be a way to block them before they started
sending spams.
The FP problem is probably insurmountable, and the gain is too small to
justify manual vetting, and the assumption of spammer stupidity too
optimistic.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Internal Systems Administrator voice: (425) 672-1304
Apropos Retail Management Systems, Inc. fax: (425) 672-0192
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you smash a computer to bits with a mallet, that appears to count
as encryption in the state of Nevada.
- CRYPTO-GRAM 12/2001
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
