Re: So here it is one year later...
[email protected] (Justin Mason)
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mxcomp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [email protected] writes: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 10:19:36PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 [email protected] wrote: > > > Wrong again. And the proof is that there are many domains that implement SPF, successfully. > > > > Most them are spammers. > > May we see some proof of that please? And with proof i don't mean that > report that is by now almost a year old and which was found to be > incorrect a while ago. FWIW, here's the results of a check of 54725 spams and 6680 nonspam mails, from SpamAssassin's weekly mass-check of network rules (at http://www.pathname.com/~corpus/NET.age ). All these messages were received less than 1 month ago, and are taken from 5 people's hand-classified corpora. SPF records passing HELO strings: 4.98% of spam, 13.29% of ham SPF records passing the MAIL FROM: 3.72% spam, 18.90% of ham So it certainly looks like that statement is untrue. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFB+n3vMJF5cimLx9ARArLTAJ4o+rkTSylsGguBszWvmDvggew+MQCeJFux UwoKM1L2LRp6aQ03oPyLPRI= =GulZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----