Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-spamassassin-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 39988 invoked from network); 11 May 2004 05:00:03 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 11 May 2004 05:00:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 73881 invoked by uid 500); 11 May 2004 05:00:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-spamassassin-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 73848 invoked by uid 500); 11 May 2004 05:00:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact spamassassin-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: List-Id: "SpamAssassin Development" Delivered-To: mailing list spamassassin-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 73820 invoked by uid 98); 11 May 2004 05:00:49 -0000 Received: from quinlan@pathname.com by hermes.apache.org by uid 82 with qmail-scanner-1.20 (clamuko: 0.70. Clear:RC:0(216.103.211.240):. Processed in 0.063143 secs); 11 May 2004 05:00:49 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: quinlan@pathname.com via hermes.apache.org X-Qmail-Scanner: 1.20 (Clear:RC:0(216.103.211.240):. Processed in 0.063143 secs) Received: from unknown (HELO proton.pathname.com) (216.103.211.240) by hermes.apache.org with SMTP; 11 May 2004 05:00:49 -0000 Received: from quinlan by proton.pathname.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BNPMt-00018g-00; Mon, 10 May 2004 21:59:51 -0700 To: bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.spamassassin.org Cc: spamassassin-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [Bug 3169] Fix SPF failures References: <20040511042914.02B8383B56@bugzilla.spamassassin.org> From: Daniel Quinlan Date: 10 May 2004 21:59:51 -0700 In-Reply-To: bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.spamassassin.org's message of "Mon, 10 May 2004 21:29:14 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 30 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 X-Spam-Rating: hermes.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > [re: net-daf] bizarre... all spam? Duncan had something weird going on with blank messages or something like that. Maybe he should disable nightly runs until it's fixed. I suspect some of his failures are for the same reason as mine, see below. > [re: net-jm] fails are good, passes suck. As expected. > [re: net-quinlan] not terrific. Most of my failures are historical. SPF records unfortunately specify "now", not "then". > since SPF isn't a spam indicator, just a forgery indicator, as long as > the hits are valid, I'm ok with the results? can people double check > so we can either fix things or close the ticket? I'm not sure what we should do about failures. This might be a case where we have to avoid using the GA and go with human set scores, initially very low until SPF is more generally reliable. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan anti-spam (SpamAssassin), Linux, http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ and open source consulting