> > In a perfect world, whitelist shouldn't be necessary. > > I disagree. Looking at the message you forwarded, there is no way to > distinguish it from spam (even as a human). If I received that mail and it > were not tagged as spam, I would consider that a false-negative.
I agree with Craig. Whitelists are absolutely necessary. Case in point: this list - people are constantly mentioning that messages to this list were tagged as spam, and in a list that discusses spam and quotes it this is going to happen. When you subscribe to an announcement list like that, you have one criteria (the To: header) that guarantees that a message isn't spam, and you may as well take advantage of that rather than hoping SpamAssassin will guess correctly based on the body text. I get lots of messages from places like Ameritrade.com, Amazon.com, and Register.com that are basically "friendly spam" - advertisements that I've asked for or allow. I had to whitelist all of these as they often look quite spammy, and they certainly would be spam if a company I didn't already have a relationship with sent them. > Headers do not a non-spam make. The content of the email looks a lot like > spam to me. Actually it doesn't look like spam at all to SpamAssassin - I forwarded it to myself and it came through with nothing but a couple of points for FROM_AND_TO_SAME. Apparently, as others have already discussed, while it may not technically be spam, they're sending it in a very spammy way and the network tests are flagging it. This is why I reduce the scores on all of the network tests (except Razor) - too many false positives. -- michael moncur mgm at starlingtech.com http://www.starlingtech.com/ "If we don't change direction soon, we'll end up where we're going." -- Professor Irwin Corey _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
