On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Christian Brel wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:10:11 +1000 (EST)
Res <r...@ausics.net> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Per Jessen wrote:
Christian Brel wrote:
Perhaps the time has come for a fork of Spamassassin where these
commercial considerations are not so obvious?
No need for such drastic measures - it's only a ruleset.
no whitelist should ever become default part of SA
the day it is, is the day I look elsewhere.
Unless yours installed without the -4 and below rule for Habeas, then
you may just want to review that point of view ;-)
I'm the person here who has final say as to who/what gets whitelisted,
I will not ever use ANY third party whitelist service, for reasons as
outlined earler in this thread, just because someone pays to be a good guy
doesnt mean they are.
--
Res
"What does Windows have that Linux doesn't?" - One hell of a lot of bugs!
