From: <rich...@buzzhost.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, 2009/November/30 11:38
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 12:19 -0700, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:57 AM, Hajdú Zoltán wrote:
> Then whos job? :) Habeas doesnt monitor Your Inbox.
>
> If You have the time to write here just for 'flaming' against a ~good
> concept...
> ...Maybe it would be a better idea to spend that time on supporting
> them with Your feedback.
Thanks for the support, but there's no point. Some of the folks on this
list are way too angry to ever do anything that might be helpful to
others.
--
J.D. Falk <jdf...@returnpath.net>
Return Path Inc
Perhaps that should read "Some of the folks on this list are way too
angry to ever do anything that might be helpful companies who try to
pass off bulk mail in a white list"
JD, I appreciate your role is to grease the wheels for you 'legitimate'
bulk mailers and make money, but don't take it personally when people
don't want your rubbish - no matter how much you sex it up.
I do note that the company concerned continues spamming on a daily basis
and remains white listed:
80.75.69.201
sa-accredit.habeas.com
list.dnswl.org
So please, spare me the sob story about what a wonderful idea HABEAS is.
Talk is cheap, action speaks louder than words.
That seems to be my biggest problem with the whitelist concept. It's
reaction
time is too limited. Maybe what I should do is leave the whitelisting
enabled and
use a meta rule to cancel it out if any of the block lists hit.
Of course, a problem I've always admired those running ISP spam filters for
willingly and at least partially successfully facing is the simple fact that
one
person's spam is another person's ham. I've often found that whitelists are
far broader, for that reason, than I am.
{^_^}
