On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:28:05 -0700 "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk-li...@cybernothing.org> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Charles Gregory wrote: > > > Which finally brings us back to the core questions which seem to go > > unanswered: > > They've all been answered many times, in other threads. Habeas > wasn't involved in emailreg.org, though. No connection at all. I don't recall anyone claiming Emailreg.org was related to Habeas? Habeas has enough bulkers on it to make a simple paupers 'pay to spam' list like Emailreg pale into total insignificance. Whist Micheal Perone may have a bit of a chequered history as far as bulk mail goes, it would be unfair to compare Emailreg/Barracuda on a like for like basis with a bulk mailer/spammer like Return Path - and the can of wheel grease that is Habeas. The point comes back to this and it has *not* been answered sensibly; WHY DOES SPAMASSASSIN DEFAULT INSTALL WITH A NEGATIVE SCORING RULE THAT FAVOURS A COMMERCIAL BULK MAILER. Namely the negative score for Habeas? Ship it with a 0.0 score, the problem goes. Leave it as it is and it smells corrupt. It's that old addage. If it looks corrupt, and it smells corrupt, it's probably corrupt. Perhaps the time has come for a fork of Spamassassin where these commercial considerations are not so obvious? > > -- > J.D. Falk <jdf...@returnpath.net> > Return Path Inc > > -- This e-mail and any attachments may form pure opinion and may not have any factual foundation. Please check any details provided to satisfy yourself as to suitability or accuracy of any information provided. Data Protection: Unless otherwise requested we may pass the information you have provided to other partner organisations.
