On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:46:03 +1300 "Michael Hutchinson" <packetl...@ping.net.nz> wrote:
> Everyone else started carrying on about the Habeas rules being > present at all, when it is more than within their power to disable > those rules. But they should not have to disable a whitelist that assists with the delivery of bulk commercial mail in an anti-spam application! If the sender is relying on such rules to keep the mailout under the radar then clearly there is something very wrong with that? The issues here are clear: *The inclusion of white list that pretty much favours a single commercial mail organisation. *The default score applied to that listed senders being hideously favourable(are there any other rules with such mad negative scores in the mix by default?) *The lack of any other commercial white lists from the competitors of Return Path being used in the product. I'm interested but equally suspicious as to why a small set of people involved in this anti-spam product are keen to try and move on from this and sweep it under the carpet. Could this be AssassinGate??? Lol. > > Buy what you want, but I'm not selling anything. > > Cheers, > Mike > > -- 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.
