Duncan Findlay wrote: >We must also remember that by making it easy for our users to descriminate, we >aren't hurting our users, but anyone who uses one of those TLDs, most of >whom are 100% innocent. > When sysadmins in those TLDs fix their relays, I'll be happy to hear them out. In the meantime, experience shows mail relayed through those TLDs is more likely to be of the processed pork product variety. People sending mail from those domains who get their messages *merely re-routed* (or at worst, defanged in the case of HTML) because of SpamAssassin who object to this should work on getting their sysadmins to fix their open relays. I realize it's a guilt-by-association problem; but it's also the reality. And jeez, it's not even as though we're refusing delivery!
According to this Wired News article http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,50455,00.html the situation with China may go diplomatic by this summer anyway. Good grief, I'm not recommending we block 203/8 at the firewall! As to the issue of "getting our users in trouble", I would like to remind people here that there's this thing called the First Amendment. They can spam -- goody. We can publish lists of TLDs we know to be leaving open relays out in the night. It's called a Free Press. It's a great example of something Oliver Wendell Holmes (IIRC) meant when he said that the solution to bad speech isn't censorship, it's more and better speech. By the way -- I'm perfectly willing to be shown to be wrong here. If this rule generates too many false positives vs. a test spam corpus, out it goes, or at the very least, it never makes it into the release version. USAians are not the only people on the planet here. But as I said -- It Works For Me, and I suspect many others as well. -- http://www.pricegrabber.com | Dog is my co-pilot. _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
