On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 02:27:37PM -0500, Wandrer wrote: > FYI: > > The Mail Killer > In this case the culprit was an alleged spam filter system called "Spam > Assassin." > Any person that recommends this software should be required to re-take > their IQ test, to see if they still have one. > Any service denier who actually uses it should be promptly sued into > oblivion. > It's true that most anti-spam filtering systems are intended simply to > reduce spam, not to apply judgments to the content of email. They fail, as > any dumb, brute force filtering system will do, but their intentions are > generally good. > Not the ... person ... who wrote Spam Assassin. > He appears to have a political agenda that's nicely summed up in his own > words in the documentation for the software. He says, and I quote: > Profit is dirty, not pure > I wonder how this ... person ... feeds himself, without benefit of someone > making a profit somewhere? > Or why he bothers. > > http://www.talkbiz.com/assassin.html >
Anyone at all disturbed by his entire rant about the author of SpamAssassin having a hidden political agends? He bases this on 20_body_tests.cf: describe PURE_PROFIT Profit is dirty, not pure. He is taking everything on the website out of context. Perhaps we should have the TESTS page contain the actualy regexps. That way people will realise he is a moron. Personally, I love how CASHCASHCASH has a negative score; yet he still thinks we consider it a sign of spam. However, I do agree that many tests descriptions are misleading. Ones that say "Talks about ...." should really say "Talks about .... in a manner unique to spam." Furthermore, his entire neglect for our say on the matter (as any article should have) is dispicable. -- Duncan Findlay _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
