https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5864
--- Comment #4 from Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-03-26 17:37:15 PST --- Well, let's face it. Do you agree with the listing in uribl? If not, why should we remove it from the skip list, just because someone at URIBL is being aggressive and adding things to grey that clearly are not useful indicators of spam? Sorry, but URIBL grey is just plain not reputable. That alone is no reason or cause to start bombing surbl.org with geocities.com queries. (AFAIK, surbl has it permanently whitelisted). Removing it also doesn't serve any purpose even considering URIBL. The greylist isn't scored strongly enough to have a significant impact, so removing these domains from the skip list won't cause any noticable amount of spam to be detected by spamassassin. All it does is increase server load for spamassassin users, surbl.org (who I highly doubt wants it) and uribl.com (who could be perceived as asking for it). If it was a blacklisted domain, I might agree. However, obvious nonspam domains being added to URIBL's greylist does not provide me one ounce of motivation to move it. All it proves is how absurdly untrustworthy the grey list is. Note: URIBL's blacklist is excellent, however their greylist is patently useless as a spam criteria. I vote -1 on this patch. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
