| 1 |
Facts: |
| 2 |
a) current SPF TXT record of our domain is "v=spf1 mx ptr ?all" |
| 3 |
b) I use my own MTA to send my @g.o messages. |
| 4 |
c) Probably I am not the only one who does that |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I've just evaluated SPF support in spamassassin and I've discovered that |
| 7 |
SPF_NEUTRAL has a big fat score of 1.1. |
| 8 |
I don't know about you guys & gals, but I'm not used to have |
| 9 |
spamassassin scores > 1 assigned to messages sent by me. Yes, I know, it |
| 10 |
is only a statistical score, but if SPF_NEUTRAL has such a big |
| 11 |
probability of being spam, that could only means it is used more by |
| 12 |
spammers than honest folks. Btw, I don't think SPF's failure to become a |
| 13 |
industry standard is a secret to anyone. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Conclusion: |
| 16 |
The proper TXT record for our domain would be "v=spf1 +all", which |
| 17 |
translates (according to http://new.openspf.org/SPF_Record_Syntax ) as |
| 18 |
"the domain owner thinks that SPF is useless". And it really is useless, |
| 19 |
at the very least for our widespread organization. |
Archives