Re: SPF deployment, was RFC 3929 on Alternative Decision ...

On Sunday 31 October 2004 04:15, John Levine wrote:
> >>The amount of mail going through SPF tests is still small, and only a few
> >>aggressively wacky sites block mail that fails SPF.
> >
> >With the release of SA3.0, this is likely changing.
>
> Small amount of mail tested, or few wacky sites?  Both, I suppose.
>
> If people really are doing tests of SPF or Sender ID or other similar
> schemes, I'd be most interested in hearing about the results,
> particularly numbers of how much legit mail is tagged valid or
> invalid, how much spam is tagged valid or invalid, and how spammers
> are adapting/ Ciphertrust says they've seen more spam than good mail
> pass SPF checks.  That doesn't surprise me, but their numbers were so
> small that I'd like to see some confirmation.

I've got an SPF setup running at the moment - not a high traffic site - around 
4k messages per day.

The results I'm seeing are something like:

85% - No Record
5% - Hard Fail - Breached record 
10% - SoftFail

Of the hard fails none are legit - I'm actually bouncing on hard fail.

So far, all of the SoftFails have been eBay Phishes - I have my system set up 
to make sure that softfails get through, but get hammered through every evil 
that SpamAssassin and DSPAM can do to them.

Now, granted that I have SPF as a last layer behind a couple of DNSBLs, 
numerous header and body checks and Greylisting, but I'd have expected 
something to have managed to get through that was handled in a non-optimal 
manner - so far nothing.

P.
-- 
If Mind over Matter is a Matter of Course
 Does it Matter if Nobody Minds?