I agree. The only addresses I feel comfortable at all with in a default whitelist are large, sophisticated, lawyer-rich companies who are likely to agressively pursue spammers who debase their trademarks. eg if a spammer forges a @amazon.com return address, they will not long continue to do that once it's drawn to amazon's attention.
I don't think lists.sf.net qualifies for the whitelist by that criterion. Also, spammers could quite conceivably post spam to the mailing list; I'm actually somewhat surprised it hasn't ever happened AFAIK (touch wood). Maybe they're too scared of us and don't want to provoke anything :) C Charlie Watts wrote: CW> On Wed, 1 May 2002, Richie Laager wrote: CW> CW> > Every once and a while, a message sent to this mailing list is caught as CW> > spam on my system (and the systems of others). Could the following lines CW> > be added to 60_whitelist.cf (or some other config file)? CW> > CW> > all_spam_to spamassassin-*@lists.sourceforge.net CW> > all_spam_to spamassassin-*@lists.sf.net CW> CW> I don't think there should be a *default* whitelist. I'd be happy if CW> SpamAssassin came with an annotated sample whitelist, but I don't think it CW> should have one by default. The default provides a well-documented way for CW> spammers to get things through the system. CW> CW> And the last thing we need is for spammers to start getting messages CW> through by forging a "To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" header. :-) _______________________________________________________________ Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
