On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 10:14, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk<rich...@buzzhost.co.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:06 +0100, Justin Mason wrote: >> I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients. >> Are you reporting these spams to them? >> > Yes - but you would thing a log full of 550's may be a clue. > > What concerns me is SpamAssassin effectively white listing spammers. > White listing should be a user option - not something added in a > nefarious manner. At least it is clear to see with Spamassassin which is > a plus - but I cannot pretend that I am not disappointed to find a > whitelisted 'spammer net' in the core rules.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5905 has some information on the background; we asked SURBL for their top queried domains that they considered nonspam, and it was in that list. SURBL have always been scrupulous in their operations and listing criteria fwiw. Going by bug 5905 though, and this report, we should probably remove it from the whitelist. > I'm wondering why (other > than MONEY) it would have ended up in there? Hope that answers your question. note that it didn't involve "MONEY". btw silly unfounded accusations mean that it's less likely you'll get anyone to answer your mail, so please don't do that. --j.
