On 4/1/2012 2:25 AM, Fortney, James T - CSCCS wrote:
Michael (et all) -
Please excuse if this perpetuates an OT discussion, but I do not
believe Linked-In has changed anything other than their presentation
of how to submit an op-out request. Their procedures still require
you to give
On 4/2/12 9:44 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Actually, my experience has been the opposite. I used to receive lots
of Linked-In emails and complained to them a few times regarding the
lack of an opt-out. Now that they have added one, it seems to work
normally for me. I do not, and have never had, a
At 3/30/2012 03:32 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 3/30/12 2:26 AM, Dave Warren wrote:
I'd argue that their inability to offer a functional opt-out is
bordering on spam-support.
months ago, it was non functional (you needed to join, which gave
them permission to spam you in order to opt-out)
On 3/29/2012 3:06 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
As a side note, linkedin likely had someone from FreeBSD list use the
email address to invite people. I doubt linkedin actually did it.
They are an easily abused system but I've never seen them actually
support spam.
I'd argue that their
On 3/29/12 6:06 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
As a side note, linkedin likely had someone from FreeBSD list use the
email address to invite people. I doubt linkedin actually did it.
They are an easily abused system but I've never seen them actually
support spam.
as in 'technically', yes
On 3/30/12 2:26 AM, Dave Warren wrote:
I'd argue that their inability to offer a functional opt-out is
bordering on spam-support.
months ago, it was non functional (you needed to join, which gave them
permission to spam you in order to opt-out)
they finally (and I hope it was my constant
Some human being decided on the -3.0 score.
Yes, and I could argue based on my corpus that -3.0 is not harsh enough
is my basic point.
I agree I'm not looking below the surface of the rules very much,
though. I am simply saying that XYZ rule on my corpus has an extremely
good S/O.
Can
I would like to consider tflags for all 'spam for hire' scores be
changed to net nice noautolearn
this way, at least you aren't adding insult to injury.
Please open a bug but what benefit do you see this having in particular
for the RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED?
regards,
KAM
On 03/30/2012 05:52 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I would like to consider tflags for all 'spam for hire' scores be
changed to net nice noautolearn
this way, at least you aren't adding insult to injury.
Please open a bug but what benefit do you see this having in particular
for the
On 3/30/2012 11:51 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Some human being decided on the -3.0 score.
Yes, and I could argue based on my corpus that -3.0 is not harsh enough
is my basic point.
I agree I'm not looking below the surface of the rules very much,
though. I am simply saying that XYZ rule
On 3/30/2012 12:08 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
I checked my logs for the last 30 days. RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED hit 505
times, but did not hit a single spam message. There is also not a
single case where it would have changed the ham/spam designation of the
message if it had not hit.
In other words,
If you go back, I and many others have complained about the 'pay to
spam' rules currently in SpamAssassin.
Some of these, like linked in, are blatant violations of US federal CAN
Spam laws.
Last time I got a spam from linked in, they insisted: (the company that
certified them, and took money
On 3/29/2012 3:47 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
If you go back, I and many others have complained about the 'pay to
spam' rules currently in SpamAssassin.
Some of these, like linked in, are blatant violations of US federal
CAN Spam laws.
Last time I got a spam from linked in, they insisted:
13 matches
Mail list logo
