I just want to point out that what ever decision you make on Razor, will set a precedent which you must (in fairness) follow in the future for any equivalent or better performing services which have a similar license and no other mitigating issues.
I see many rationalizations for keeping Razor ON by default (using various means to justify it), which all seem to motivate from a desire not to lose functionality or to hurt users. I think that is great, just be prepared for the outside world to look at that as a precedent of a way to piggyback on SpamAssassin to develop centralized reporting databases for commercial products (e.g. CloudMark). One thing I respect is people who can live by their own creed or religion. One thing I find pitiful are people who are hippocrits. More wars have started due to religion, and I see that same attitude in open source religion. People start to confuse their religion with a crusade and feel the need to attack someone who is honest about their ideas. A religion should be a personal thing and a way to breed happiness and good and amicable understandings. In my view, Daniel is the only person in this thread defending his open source creed with consistency. He apparently does not feel that services that restrict use and have financial liability, should be included and promoted by default in open source. Others here want it both ways (which by definition will be an arbritary result).
