On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 15:01:56 +0100 Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 07.01.2015 um 14:47 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas: > > what if there would be SPF_HELO_FAIL? > > SA would not be called at all > > > Maybe you could disable checking SPF_HELO, but some of us don't > > want that. > > the question is who are "some" and who are the majority > you can even socre "SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL" and "SPF_HELO_FAIL" *without* > end in "SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE" > > meta __SPF_FULL_PASS 0 > meta __SPF_RANDOM_SENDER 0 > score SPF_HELO_PASS 0 > score SPF_NONE 0.05 > score SPF_PASS -0.05 > score SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL 0.5 > score SPF_HELO_FAIL 1.5 > > > You can _NOT_ know if SPF HELO fails before you do the test > > if it fails the message get rejected before SA
Your original point was that it's technically incorrect to perform an spf helo test in the absence of an envelope policy. And you specifically made that point about my example involving an SPF_HELO_FAIL. In any case the test still has to be run for SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL, so you don't avoid an spf test by suppressing SPF_HELO_PASS. > what i want to avoid is such envelope-independent tests giving a > message pointless positive karma For the umpteenth time it's a nominal score to make sure that the rule is run and can be seen in logs and headers. It's not "karma" and it doesn't "revoke the intended little penalty for SPF_NONE" because that's another nominal rule score. A lot of rules have nominal scores, only a handful are negative. When was the last time you saw a classification fail due to nominal scores.
