On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 11:19 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> 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.
Like I say - I come from a background where money changes hands to spam,
this makes me cynical. My apologies if that offends, but it tends to be
disappointingly accurate on the majority of occasions.
>
> --j.
