On 18/12/2009 1:22 AM, Christian Brel wrote: > The issues here are clear: > *The inclusion of white list that pretty much favours a single > commercial mail organisation.
At present, to my knowledge Return Path is the only organization which has approached us for inclusion in SpamAssassin. We would more than welcome other commercial vendors provided that their lists are free for use by the majority of our users (like any blacklists we include) and that they provide reasonable good results (the same criteria for blacklists but s/spam/ham/). > *The default score applied to that listed senders being hideously > favourable(are there any other rules with such mad negative scores in > the mix by default?) Reputation type rules (such as DNSWLs) are probably the only (or certainly one of the very few) types of rules that you can weight heavily negatively. This is due to the nature of an open source product (or even given enough time to game a closed source product). Content based rules are very often easily beaten. If we could have a body rule that looks for "this mail is good" and assign a -20 score we would. Clearly that would not work. I think that the new scores are inline with what is needed to correct the high scores that some of the wanted commercial crap currently scores at. I see stuff at upwards of 8 or more regularly. > *The lack of any other commercial white lists from the competitors of > Return Path being used in the product. Again, find me a commercial white list that wants to be included in SpamAssassin on a "free for use basis" and I'll pay for the phone call to talk to them. Seriously. > I'm interested but equally suspicious as to why a small set of people > involved in this anti-spam product are keen to try and move on from > this and sweep it under the carpet. Could this be AssassinGate??? Lol. You do realize that there's only a small set of active developers, right? Daryl
