<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So you admit that your provider is harboring spammers and ignoring > complaints about them. As a customer you're in a better position to > discuss the problem with your provider than anybody else.
Wow, what a flaming strawman argument! I admitted nothing of the sort. And since you weren't paying attention, I am not the customer, the customer is the company paying the bills for us. My problem with SPEWS is that it is not an accurate way to tag spam. There are too many FPs. We (SpamAssassin) need to separate out SPEWS listings so that the GA can assign an appropriate score (could be higher or lower, but I would wager that it will be lower). If the score is too low or there are too many FPs, we can just remove the rule entirely as we have done in the past for other rules. SA's policy is to try our best to tag spam and to avoid tagging nonspam. To be perfectly clear, I am not particularly interested in convincing SPEWS to change their policy nor do I really want to go down the blackhole of debating the merits of their policy. I just want SA to tag spam as accurately as possible. It is my opinion that SPEWS hurts our ability to tag spam more than it helps. We cannot know that for certain until we separate out the SPEWS blacklist into a separate SA rule. Dan ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
