Re: SPF PASS

Carl Hutzler wrote:

> we also monitor everyone on the WL very closely

So you have PASS => assume WHITE until proven BLACK.

Yes, that's a better idea than C/R systems based on
PASS.

<joke>  postmaster@aol might still get some of these
obscure "rebounces" from me with a subject like...

Erroneous spam bounce to forged address - please use a filter and/or SPF

...but so far "my" spammers behave and gave up to
forge my FAIL-protected vanity domain.  </joke>

  [95% of the mails with a SPF policy]
>> Is that a guess ?  95% is a rather high number.

> OK, 85%. Is that better?

Any number is fine, I only wanted to know whether I
should now troll various IETF lists with "Carl said
95% of the mail traffic already has v=spf1 policies"

Such hype is harmful if it's not true, see John's
ongoing rants about the infamous spf.pobox site - it
doesn't help when I say that I didn't link to it for
almost a year now, or that the SPF Council tried to
fix it for about five months - as long as this didn't
happen it's a weak spot.  SPF is no FUSSP.  FUSSPs
are stupid, like a perpetuum mobile.

> SenderBase (volume/bounces), SpamCop (complaints),
> Spamnet (complaints), etc.

I'm not very happy with SC allowing "misdirectred
bounces" to be reported without a (potential) FAIL.

Squeeze out all bounces isn't the plan.  Bye, Frank