Re: [Asrg] misconception in SPF

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 11 December 2012 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A16621F8779 for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:47:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.405
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.405 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.494, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8llkdRyyK9+o for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:47:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2562C21F877B for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:47:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 88826 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2012 14:47:18 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 11 Dec 2012 14:47:18 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=50c74776.xn--hew.k1212; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=R45cbLV2Rp4OA/b0UkcrXWFzZ/e5mhlCMdbUQiHB2jA=; b=e/RbtqsbN/TeoCHc2F7J6Amomco6BvHzV1nLzvHN69wubX4WbAxUtc1dg8RH5gysC3347IxaxtV4SbgHgb6YlJ75kl590izFv8LderV5A150+4vM2I+nOzFfIk+QXo7WziqkUocqYR1zj4r6NlPnLfb/mB7U4hGdqfSHlr6SkaY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=50c74776.xn--hew.k1212; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=R45cbLV2Rp4OA/b0UkcrXWFzZ/e5mhlCMdbUQiHB2jA=; b=iqT0oNJpSpWbjqiBjU2NxDWmxT2UwTDRWIpxgjoaVx+RRQ4rPmY8laWqrWwUOHbfUR1//REty/1uo62mZ1F6jEikHKET6ZH9akqrLloez4TqWkN4AjaBhwGci9gCi6cqq5bgTw4XNs9LpZiK8fWW8khXX5JqUx9VUS/CghZrvFo=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Date: 11 Dec 2012 14:46:55 -0000
Message-ID: <20121211144655.19987.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: asrg@irtf.org
In-Reply-To: <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20AD790A@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] misconception in SPF
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:47:22 -0000

>No. I know some do, but I think it's a minority. (Among commercial spam-filters used mainly
>by corporations, that is. It could be that some of the larger ISPs block SPF fails outright,
>which would skew the picture.)

No ISP I know does that.  The false positive rate is much too high,
since publication of a -all record is highly correlated with
assertions that all forwarding is evil, which is of course just wrong.