Re: SPF deployment, was RFC 3929 on Alternative Decision ...
Sam Varshavchik <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mxcomp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
James Couzens writes: > On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 09:45 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > >> After DNSBLs, SPF is my most successful spam filter. Here's my >> latest mail report (# of messages rejected/reason). >> >> 7951 550 User unknown. >> 6182 517 HELO mismatch >> 1310 502 ESMTP command error >> 1171 511 Blocked by www.spambag.org : Blocked >> 839 517 Sender Policy Framework error >> 81 551 DNS lookup failure >> 74 558-500-sam:558 500 Message rejected by recipient's mail filter (BCC). >> 67 Connection timed out >> 35 500 Microsoft virus refused. >> 22 550-The headers in this message contain improperly-formatted binary… >> 21 513 Relaying denied. >> 21 550-This message contains improperly-formatted binary content… >> 20 550-This message contains text that uses unnecessary base64… >> 14 517 Syntax error. >> <= 10 79 errors for 44 types >> >> >> SPF blocks ten times more spam than the next most common spam filter. Also, >> a fairly good portion of the "HELO mismatch" rejects would've probably been >> caught by the SPF checks too. >> >> I have occasional reports of false positives, but they were related to other >> causes. No false positives reported for SPF. > > I'm curious about your "error". These are FAIL, SOFTFAIL, UNKNOWN, > ERROR or ?. I'd appreciate any clarification you can specify here. I reject FAIL and SOFTFAIL. I accept UNKNOWN and ERROR.
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 189 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBhQJdx9p3GYHlUOIRAsNQAJ9v8i37Xlo1nf/ydrqt/xDtHfS7ZwCfaHly 60/0/HmxH+j58GRKls+cq7c= =6GZC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----