I think some criteria for getting on the default whitelist are: * Lots of people get mail from there. Not just people on this mailing list, but many of the ~500,000 users we have out there whose ISPs or companies have this implemented system-wide * The thing in the whitelist is an entity that spammers would not impersonate. If you impersonate Amazon in an online missive, you can be pretty sure that you'll be talking to a lawyer before very long. Maybe not if you're a nigerian scammer, but then people probably wouldn't believe a nigerian scam from [EMAIL PROTECTED] * The thing in the whitelist requires subscription, or absolutely will honor unsubscribe requests.
There's probably more than that too, but those are probably some pretty good guidelines. I don't think spamcop.net meets any of them except the last. I don't think it's a good idea to put too much stuff in the default whitelist, because if that list gets really big it will impact performance. C On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 14:16, James Golovich wrote: > If we are going to continue to have a default whitelist that comes with > spamassassin, it might be worthwhile to have *@reports.spamcop.net to it > > Before I had procmail filtering those seperately every spamcop message was > getting flagged by spamassassin since they have many spammy > characteristics (after all it has spam in them) > > James > > > _______________________________________________ > Spamassassin-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk > > _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
