Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-18 Thread Charles Gregory
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote: On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote: Would it be rude of me to ask how you make your money? Is it from the provision and delivery of bulk commercial email or am I confused? Wow. People are running down ReturnPath and they don't even have a clear

Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-18 Thread Charles Gregory
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote: Go read the archives, troll. All of them or do you have something specific, troll? Fine, fine, pedant. Go SEARCH the archives, troll. :) - C

Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-18 Thread Charles Gregory
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote: Or we could have the whitelist rules in a meta such that they only hit when a blacklist rule doesn't, if this is a common enough problem. It might also allow people to get past the high negative score for the whitelists. Hm. I *like* that

Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-18 Thread Christian Brel
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:18:46 -0500 (EST) Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote: Go read the archives, troll. All of them or do you have something specific, troll? Fine, fine, pedant. Go SEARCH the archives, troll. :) - C Perhaps I

Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-18 Thread Charles Gregory
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote: Go SEARCH the archives, troll. :) Perhaps I can help you understand why the question was asked on list. It's obvious as to why. You failed to read previous postings that answered the question the first time(s) you (or someone else) asked it

Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-18 Thread Christian Brel
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:00:05 -0500 (EST) Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote: Go SEARCH the archives, troll. :) Perhaps I can help you understand why the question was asked on list. It's obvious as to why. You failed to read previous

Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-18 Thread Charles Gregory
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote: There comes a time when you need to deal with that and move on. We are all grown up now and not - like you say - '5 6 year old children'. Good. Then stop talking like them. Please feel free to act like an adult and end the personal attacks, or, act

Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-18 Thread Charles Gregory
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote: Charles, you *are* speaking for J D Falk with his Auspices? Hey, J D! Please post and give me your auspices. I'd love to see what this Troll posts if you say 'sure'. :) - C

Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-18 Thread Christian Brel
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:21:00 -0500 (EST) Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote: There comes a time when you need to deal with that and move on. We are all grown up now and not - like you say - '5 6 year old children'. Good. Then stop talking

Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-18 Thread Christian Brel
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:29:40 -0500 (EST) Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote: Charles, you *are* speaking for J D Falk with his Auspices? Hey, J D! Please post and give me your auspices. I'd love to see what this Troll posts if you say 'sure'.

Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-18 Thread jdow
From: Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 09:18 On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote: Go read the archives, troll. All of them or do you have something specific, troll? Fine, fine, pedant. Go SEARCH the archives, troll. :) OK, (Problem Exists

Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-18 Thread jdow
From: Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 09:21 On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote: Or we could have the whitelist rules in a meta such that they only hit when a blacklist rule doesn't, if this is a common enough problem. It might also allow people to get

Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-18 Thread Christian Brel
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:40:40 -0800 jdow j...@earthlink.net wrote: From: Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 09:18 On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote: Go read the archives, troll. All of them or do you have something specific, troll? Fine, fine,

Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-18 Thread Charles Gregory
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote: I suppose it's not a whole lot of bother to change the 3.2 scores. But, people who feel they have been bitten with a HABEAS score have probably already overridden them. Again, I make a note that my concern is for the thousands who install a 'pre-canned'

Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-18 Thread Charles Gregory
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote: Or we could have the whitelist rules in a meta such that they only hit when a blacklist rule doesn't, if this is a common enough problem. It might also allow people to get past the high negative score for the whitelists. Is there a way

Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-18 Thread jdow
From: Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 13:46 On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote: I suppose it's not a whole lot of bother to change the 3.2 scores. But, people who feel they have been bitten with a HABEAS score have probably already overridden them. Again, I

Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-18 Thread Daryl C. W. O'Shea
On 18/12/2009 4:46 PM, Charles Gregory wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, jdow wrote: I suppose it's not a whole lot of bother to change the 3.2 scores. But, people who feel they have been bitten with a HABEAS score have probably already overridden them. Again, I make a note that my concern is for

Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-18 Thread Res
the only person here at present trolling is you, so for F's sake STFU and stop generating massive noise ratio On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Charles Gregory wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote: Charles, you *are* speaking for J D Falk with his Auspices? Hey, J D! Please post and give

Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-17 Thread Christian Brel
{side note} Has anyone noticed how the thread 'emailreg.org - tainted white list' has been left unchanged, despite the topic moving on to Habeas. Whilst this is side splittingly funny if you do a search on emailreg.org and see it in the archives, it's probably not fair to drag their name through

Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-17 Thread jdow
From: Christian Brel brel.spamassassin091...@copperproductions.co.uk Sent: Thursday, 2009/December/17 09:28 {side note} Has anyone noticed how the thread 'emailreg.org - tainted white list' has been left unchanged, despite the topic moving on to Habeas. Whilst this is side splittingly funny if

RE: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-17 Thread R-Elists
I believe on the whole Warren Togami's posting about a whitelist performance on a masscheck settles the affair. White lists are very reliable. They are also very unnecessary within SpamAssassin. So perhaps the whole topic can die. I also note that the people complaining about the white

Re: [sa] Re: habeas - tainted white list

2009-12-17 Thread jdow
From: R-Elists list...@abbacomm.net Sent: Thursday, 2009/December/17 11:21 I believe on the whole Warren Togami's posting about a whitelist performance on a masscheck settles the affair. White lists are very reliable. They are also very unnecessary within SpamAssassin. So perhaps the whole