Gino Cerullo schrieb: > > On 26-Jul-06, at 4:00 AM, Rolf Kraeuchi wrote: > >> Gino Cerullo schrieb: >> [...] >>> Hey, I never claimed checking and rejecting before DATA to be ready for >>> 'large scale' deployments. ;-) But, I have to say that in the six months >>> that I've been doing it I've never had a false positive. <knocks on >>> wood> Also, I've been publishing an SPF record for over two years and >>> again, I've never had a problem with mail being rejected, misdirected or >>> lost. >>> >>> The truth is that there is no reason for any domain not to be able to >>> publish SPF records that end in at least a SOFTFAIL (~all). [...] >> >> Well, maybe there is. Doesn't SA score SOFTFAIL with more than 1 point? >> >> regards, >> rolf > > No, the default scores are as follows. > > SOFT_FAIL 0.5 > FAIL 0.9
What version is that? My default scores for SA 3.1.3 are quite different: --- scores according to 50_scores.cf --- score SPF_FAIL 0 1.333 0 1.142 score SPF_SOFTFAIL 0 1.470 0 1.384 Hmm, SOFTFAIL scores higher than FAIL?? regards, rolf
