Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-spamassassin-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 8438 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2010 23:03:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 20 Nov 2010 23:03:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 18866 invoked by uid 500); 20 Nov 2010 23:03:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-spamassassin-users-archive@spamassassin.apache.org Received: (qmail 18846 invoked by uid 500); 20 Nov 2010 23:03:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@spamassassin.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list users@spamassassin.apache.org Received: (qmail 18839 invoked by uid 99); 20 Nov 2010 23:03:36 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:03:36 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [65.49.42.43] (HELO junkemailfilter.com) (65.49.42.43) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:03:32 +0000 Delivery-date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:03:32 -0800 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by darwin.junkemailfilter.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72) id 1PJwSb-0004x3-G5 on interface=127.0.0.1; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:03:09 -0800 Message-ID: <4CE853A2.7000601@junkemailfilter.com> Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:02:58 -0800 From: Marc Perkel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RW CC: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: SPF technical problems (was Re: email address forgery) References: <4CE1565D.1010506@invaluement.com> <4CE16043.9080504@secnap.com> <20101115114348.59bab6fa@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com> <4CE164EA.4080800@secnap.com> <20101115115616.0e590c82@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com> <1289844463.5356.26.camel@mcbain> <20101115132547.162697b6@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com> <4CE2A7CC.6090006@junkemailfilter.com> <20101118115938.GB14357@fantomas.sk> <20101118160048.15876coh8ykscxb4@mail.junc.org> <20101118175523.247cbc84@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20101118175523.247cbc84@gumby.homeunix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spamfilter-host: darwin.junkemailfilter.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com On 11/18/2010 9:55 AM, RW wrote: > On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:00:48 +0100 > Benny Pedersen wrote: > >> On tor 18 nov 2010 12:59:38 CET, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote >>> On 16.11.10 07:48, Marc Perkel wrote: >>>> Spammer can and do use SPF so it's not a good white list either. >>>> If SPF is correct and the domain is in my white list then I'll >>>> pass it as white. >>> we call this "shitting into one's own mouth". >> Marc have you seen spf scores in spamassassin ? >> >> why is spf_pass not giving -100 as default ? > What he actually wrote was "If SPF is correct and the domain is in my > white list" which is is equivalent to USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST. That does > score -100 and has no scatological implications. Spammers can and do set SPF records too. -- Marc Perkel - Sales/Support support@junkemailfilter.com http://www.junkemailfilter.com Junk Email Filter dot com 415-992-3400