https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6247
--- Comment #18 from Neil Schwartzman <[email protected]> 2009-12-07 14:03:37 UTC --- (In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #11) > > Furthermore, I've never been comfortable with such high artificial negative > > scores like -4 through -8 for any whitelist. I think we should be more > > conservative and halve such numbers. > > As long as you do the same to the other whitelists.... > > > Please explain how the old rules map to the new rules. > > I'll ask a colleague to chime in. > > Short version is that we've condensed all those old levels (quite some time > ago, actually), and now there are only the two: Certified, and Safe. Both are > based on actual measurable results, rather than self-assertion of practices > like other whitelists. Hi, First off, the scoring for Sender Score Certified (now called Return Path Certified) were part a legacy of the Bonded Sender scoring, and that of Habeas Safelist were done under the auspices of that defunct company. As well, we have drastically improved checking on both lists, and will be continually adding data streams to our checks. (There are two massive ones that are currently in test, that I can’t disclose (sorry, wish I could), but rest assured you’ve heard of them, and you don’t have access to that data via SA. They will give us yet another huge jump forward. Stay tuned.) As to the timing – Justin, a million pardons, and we completely understand if we must wait until proper testing on the scoring is done to consider these requests. A lot of our development has been pushed around the calendar; it had been my hope to coincide with the new release, but it was not to be. I did want to comment about the scoring being designed to get around SURBL or URBL checks – that simply isn’t the case. Both our whitelists were in existence and scored as such before either list was in existence, TTBOMK. All of our documentation is listed here: http://www.returnpath.net/commercialsender/certification/certification_documents.php Let me summarize our checks Entity checks – Certified & Safe – PACER (lawsuits) – Dun & Bradstreet – ROKSO – SBL, URIBL & other DNSBLs as listed below – Sign-up disclosure – Privacy policy clarity, presence INFRASTRUCTURE – Certified & Safe - Role accounts (abuse@ postmaster@ for all domains in from: reply-to, return path) - SPF - DNS integrity (recursive ‘open’ dns) - Spamtraps (we currently have five spamtrap feeds in play including those from spamcop and project honeypot) - Unsubscribe functionality (currently measured by Lashback) - Bounce processing - Nameserver reputation and snowshoeing - rDNS - DNSBLS: CBL, Lashback, NJABL, Return Path BL, SORBS, Spamcop, Spamhaus Zen, VIRBL PERFORMANCE – Certified - Hotmail complaints - Yahoo complaints - Windows Live Sender Reputation Data (1) - Two anonymous webmail providers’ complaints - Clients kept to average number of IPs according to their assigned volume tier (anti-snowshoeing measure) - Volume profile examination (we expect to see dispersion of email across our receiver metrics match those shown by all senders in the programme), to curtail ‘selective sending’. (1) http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=windows+live+sender+reputation+data&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 -- Neil Schwartzman Director, Certification Security & Standards Return Path Inc. 0142002038 -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
