From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <spamassas...@dostech.ca>
Sent: Friday, 2009/December/18 01:07
On 18/12/2009 3:32 AM, Christian Brel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:24:45 -0500
"Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <spamassas...@dostech.ca> wrote:
...
From the data we have from mass-checks we are erring a very small
amount on the side of caution by not disabling the whitelists by
default.
It's a big fat favourable score to one organisation for 'erring a very
small amount on the side of caution' don't you think? -4/-8 given the
average 419 spam only scores 4-8 points.
Again, we agree. We've changed it in the upcomming release and will
surely backport it when we're done getting 3.3 out. It's been like this
for years, I don't think we need to jump like crazy to change the 3.2
updates before we've even settled on a final score.
I suppose it's not a whole lot of bother to change the 3.2 scores. But,
people who feel they have been bitten with a HABEAS score have probably
already overridden them.
If everything is open and transparent give the default user the option
to *enable* them and score them zero, unless - of course - there is
some kind of logical reason for these mad scoring spam assisting rules
that favour Return Path in the default set up?
I stand firm on my opinion that our principle of safe for most users is
the logical reason for including DNSWLs.
Indeed, HE is not the boss.
If you like you can transparently disable the DNSWLs.
Is he smart enough to do so?
{^_^}
