Ian Zimmerman <i...@buug.org> writes:

> I just got in my inbox what I consider spam from the Belgian domain
> selling Japanese copiers & printers (you probably know which one).  What
> made it pass through SA were RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED and RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE.
> Together they account for a whopping -5 points - a poison antidote pill!
> Isn't that a bit excessive?  In fact, since Return Path explicitly
> advertises itself as a service for marketers, and I _never_ knowingly
> subscribe to a marketing list, these scores should be (smallish)
> positive as far as I'm concerned.

I have repeatedly had problems with returnpath, getting spam from places
that they have "certified".   The notion of giving those rules a small
positive score is quite reasonable.

Generally, SA assigns scores based on a ham/spam corpus.  For rules that
aren't pay-to-play whitelists, this is totally reasonable.  For
whitelists that take money from senders that send spam, it isn't
reasonable.  So I have long held that SA should have a far more
stringest policy for negative scores for whitelists, in the case where
the whitelist is compensated for a listing.  Specifically, a duty to
delist when there is spam, far more transparency, and a listing policy
that is consistent with SA's definition of spam.

My most recent returnpath problem was from brewster, where someone I
don't know "invited" me.  I hold that any service that
permits/encourages uploading an entire address book and sending
"invitations" to the entire set is outright spam.  (Letting people type
in one email address at a time is light grey...)  I don't know what
actually happpened in this case - I did get a response back from my 2nd
complaint to returnpath, and there wasn't enough information to
determine exactly how the particular case falls.

Attachment: pgpHygdLnLwyJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to