Jason Bertoch a écrit : > <pedestal> > It's my opinion that if an administrator misconfigured his SPF record, or a > number of other things on their side, it is their fault that mail cannot be > delivered. In the case of SPF_FAIL, they have explicitly told us they don't > want mail to come from a server not listed in their record and I believe we > should follow their directive. In fact, isn't that the point of SPF; to help > us > reject forged messages coming from unauthorized servers? Why bother even > dealing with SPF if we're still going to let people get away with poor > administration? That's partly how we got here in the first place... > </pedestal>
your server, your rules. I personally don't use SA to police the network, but to detect spam. In addition, I prefer to let spam slip than block legitimate mail. I also won't block forwarded mail just because it fails SPF. but of course, YMMV. since PSF fail doesn't mean spam (nor spf $success mean legitimate mail), it's here (in SA) only as an additionnal parameter which value contributes to a global result. now if you want to jump in the spf crusade, you should use it in the MTA and probably not care in a content filter.
