OK, so just to clarify. My SF blocks against softtail matches. If an IP gets placed in my IP blacklist cache for failing SPF on softtail x times, then this IP will be submitted to your SFBD also? Just to be clear.

Res=Error=0 & 21 skipping is what I thought, again just wanted to be clear.

And the last point, nothing crucial, and the new filters are brilliant, but just thought I'd ask as I thought it a little strange.

Keep up the good work!

Dan,

Sorry you took my post the wrong way. I do appreciate your desire to help as you spend your valuable time helping many users on this forum.  I wish I had the time to share detailed information with you on our setup and results.  That would likely serve us both. 

Unfortunately I really don't have the time to do that.

This is major new features being discussed here and I'm trying my best to participate.

Obviously we run completely different operations. Luckily Spamfilter is flexible enough to serve many different types of operations. Our users are strictly corporate users and our strategy for fighting spam begain development years before SpamFilter was out.  Our configuration is obviously much different than yours. That does not make yours nor ours invalid nor problematic, just different.

Therefore my comments on hoping for new features that can serve us ALL and not just you OR me, for example.

pcmatt,

I am still finding it hard to understand why you are getting so many false positives as I have not yet seen any with one exception which I whitelisted.  Could the reason be that I have a semi large white list for many valid listservers?  Or, are you including adult content as False Positives.  Strickly speaking, Adult content is not automatically SPAM.  As an ISP, we have many users the WANT their adult content.

Any examples would help.

I think we have a great group of thinkers  here.  If the rest of the admins in the world were as vigilant, we wouldn't have a spam problem.  I like the Idea of a bit value, but I am more concerned about overhead, than false positives.  That said, it becomes a matter of choice really.  Marco's percent Idea would help to temper the more aggressive admins as well as offset the less aggressive admins. 

Matt,  as far as telling an offender why they were rejected, I agree that this is an important aspect of spam fighting.  For this reason I would side with the bitvalue approach.  I have given this some thought and aside from the fact that the SPF database would need new fields to id why something was rejected, there is little extra overhead for the clients.  I for one believe that I would not want someone else's list of keyword determining what is spam and what isn't. Also, there are MAPS servers out there that are way to aggressive for my liking.

Thats my 2 cents for now

John,