From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932469AbWFKC6c (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jun 2006 22:58:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932530AbWFKC6c (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jun 2006 22:58:32 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.168]:63236 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932469AbWFKC6b (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jun 2006 22:58:31 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: Cc: Subject: RE: VGER does gradual SPF activation (FAQ matter) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 19:58:24 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-reply-to: <192101c68d00$8c7d0dc0$0225a8c0@Wednesday> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Sat, 10 Jun 2006 19:54:03 -0700 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Sat, 10 Jun 2006 19:54:04 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Rather than inject emotions let's play a little bit with facts. This is > excerpts from a SpamAssassin report for about 82000 emails. > > TOP SPAM RULES FIRED > ------------------------------------------------------------ > RANK RULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM > ------------------------------------------------------------ > 49 SPF_SOFTFAIL 1804 0.42 2.20 8.31 0.01 > 72 SPF_HELO_PASS 1112 0.26 1.36 5.13 47.45 > 78 SPF_PASS 994 0.23 1.21 4.58 45.53 > 92 SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL 772 0.18 0.94 3.56 0.03 > 113 SPF_FAIL 589 0.14 0.72 2.71 0.00 > 177 SPF_HELO_FAIL 352 0.08 0.43 1.62 0.00 > > Stated from the opposite view > > TOP HAM RULES FIRED > ------------------------------------------------------------ > RANK RULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM > ------------------------------------------------------------ > 5 SPF_HELO_PASS 28563 7.20 34.88 5.13 47.45 > 6 SPF_PASS 27409 6.90 33.47 4.58 45.53 > > And so forth. > > People here should be smart enough to draw their own conclusions from > raw data. Yeah, that you measured the wrong thing. SPF does not distinguish spam from non-spam. What percentage of emails with forged sender addresses passed an SPF check? What percentage of emails with forged sender addresses failed an SPF check? What percentage of emails that correctly identified their senders passed an SPF check? What percentage of emails that correctly identified their senders failed an SPF check? SPF is an anti-forgery tool. It helps to prevent joe-jobs and false claims of being the victim of a joe-job. DS