Too many municipalities marked `green`

[rhunger]

Thank you!

first of all: A big thank you for your work! Very clever approach to make specific IT dependencies visible.

Issue Report

From my point of view: Too many municipalities are marked in green.

Municipalities referring to spf.protection.outlook.com somewhere in their SFP record should IMHO marked red.

Example: Unterschächen

• actual: marked green
• expected: marked red
• reason: SPF record shows, that sending of mails is handled by Microsoft
  • source: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-office-365/email-authentication-spf-configure

Other examples: Fischenthal, ...

Current record of Unterschächen on http://mxmap.ch

• Independent
• Incoming mail handled by: ur.ch | swiss | mail1.ur.ch and ur.ch | swiss | mail2.ur.ch
• Authorized to send mail: Microsoft | hyperscaler | spf.protection.outlook.com

[davidhuser]

hi, thanks for the kind words. I agree that too many are green, and received this feedback multiple times. I am in the process of improving the detection. Thanks for your patience 😊

[livenson]

I've been struggling a bit with improvement of the algorithm as well in my fork, current version is here - https://github.com/livenson/mxmap/blob/0789800656e5505aeed0e694f7026e96b1476795/src/mail_sovereignty/classify.py#L102 . SPF alone is not a very good indicator.

[davidhuser]

I don't think we can deterministically assign a provider. I'm exploring using weighted signals to assign a confidence score and simply mark them grey if there is not enough signal.