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.
pgpHygdLnLwyJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
