From: "Christian Brel" <brel.spamassassin091...@copperproductions.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, 2009/December/17 22:22
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.
Christian, you sound, for all the world, as sensible as the idiots
who claim that 9/11 was organized by the White House or Israeli spies
or both. Maybe it's time you retired to the more conspiracy theory
friendly realm the Trufers maintain. You're for /dev/null here.
{^_^}
