Milter-greylist

Christian Pélissier Christian.Pelissier@... [milter-greylist]
<milter-greylist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> I think a SPF record with ip4:0.0.0.0/0 should be considered to be
> the opposite what SPF is for and a such misappropriation should be
> treated on the contrary as a strong indication that the sender is a
> spammer and should conduct to a spf=fail result.

This is why you have the spf self clause: it matches if your own IP is
SPF-compliant, which suggests the sender's mask is broad.

-- 
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
manu@...