On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
On 01/03/18 19:50, David Jones wrote:
On 03/01/2018 12:29 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect:

-0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS      RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record
                              [ listed in iadb.isipp.com]
-0.1 RCVD_IN_IADB_SPF       RBL: IADB: Sender publishes SPF record
-0.1 RCVD_IN_IADB_OPTIN     RBL: IADB: All mailing list mail is opt-in
-0.0 RCVD_IN_IADB_SENDERID  RBL: IADB: Sender publishes Sender ID record
-0.0 RCVD_IN_IADB_LISTED    RBL: Participates in the IADB system
-0.1 RCVD_IN_IADB_DK        RBL: IADB: Sender publishes Domain Keys record
-0.1 RCVD_IN_IADB_VOUCHED   RBL: ISIPP IADB lists as vouched-for sender

There is simply no reason in the interest of SA as an antispam solution to publish all those rules.

Sure there is: to allow the site admin the ability to make fine-grained decisions in local rules.

I am concerned when the default settings in SA effectively facilitate marketing companies to stuff my Inbox full of junk.

-0.6 points makes the difference?

Perhaps the default scores need to be reviewed, but simply having the rules isn't problematic.

 John Hardin KA7OHZ                    http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
 jhar...@impsec.org    FALaholic #11174     pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
 key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
  Once more, please; I missed it the last time: what's the difference
  between "Quantitative Easing" and "Counterfeiting"?
 11 days until Albert Einstein's 139th Birthday

Reply via email to