https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6668
--- Comment #7 from Darxus <[email protected]> 2011-10-03 19:16:27 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > I don't have a problem with this concept. My veto statement above had to do > with the actual URL and the description which were a direct link and > advertisement for a vendor. Ah, that was just a rough guess at how it should be implemented. A url to a spamassassin page certainly seems entirely appropriate to me. > A more generic message such as this would be fine and +1'd by me: > > The RBL responded with a failure code. Visit www.spamassassin.org/rbl for > more > information. That sounds great to me as well. Although I'd prefer something in the wiki for maintainability, I don't know, maybe http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/XBLAbuse ? (In reply to comment #4) > > getting the provider to disable the relevant network tests. Which is worse? > > False positives are worse from an anti-Spam perspective. You mis-read what I said. I never suggested false positives (in fact I suggested it was bad that SEM intentionally caused false positives). I was talking about causing false negatives (spam being marked as non-spam). > That's unrealistic as there are great services that have reasonable thresholds > for use. So the question is, what are acceptable methods of enforcing those thresholds? Blocking queries resulting in delay of email is acceptable to you. I don't know how effective that is in getting people to stop querying, and it doesn't provide any feedback to indicate that there is a problem. Is it acceptable to cause false-negatives, spam being marked as non-spam, with clear indication (via a matching rule and description) of what the problem is? -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
