Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > Victor Sudakov skrev den 2020-11-04 15:47: > > > > > > > 0.0 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail) > > > Benny Pedersen wrote: feel free to add into local.cf > > > score SPF_FAIL (5) (5) (5) (5) > > > > > > this will add 5 points to default score > > On 05.11.20 18:54, Victor Sudakov wrote: > > Is that sarcasm, Benny? I don't deserve it. > > > > An SPF fail is by no means a sure sign of spam. It can be some indicator > > of spamicity (as I thought), but not a decisive sign thereof. > > we are aware of that. That's the main reason SPF_FAIL score is not high. > > but you can to that and expect other rules to push score back to ham range.
If I get users' complaints about false negatives and see that they could have been prevented by setting a higher score for SPF_FAIL, I'll do that. > > > Moreover, after reading other replies in the thread, I am even begining to > > doubt the wizdom of rejecting hard SPF fails in the MTA (which I do in > > some installations). > > you can still do that as policy decision. The practice of SRS is not widely adopted IMHO, so I shall prefer for SPF_FAIL to be one of the many spamicity factors, and not a decisive factor for rejection. -- Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN 2:5005/49@fidonet http://vas.tomsk.ru/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
