Hi, On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:31:07 -0400 (EDT) "Steven W. Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday, Jul 28th 2003 at 10:07 -0400, quoth Matt Kettler: > > =>At 12:04 AM 7/28/2003 -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote: > =>>This is an rbl that IMNSHO should *not* be used by anyone unless they > =>>deliberately want to block all clients of uunet. I know of which I speak. > => > =>as a side note, the score of the RFCI RBL in 2.55 is less than 1.5. > => > =>It would be very hard to construe this as a "block all of UUnet" case since > =>the rule score is fairly modest. I don't know of anyone offhand that runs > =>with a default tag level of under 3.0, except those who use SA as a "tag > =>everything that's not in my whitelist" tool. > => > =>Admittedly it does wind up giving all of UUnet the equivalent of a reduced > =>threshold, but it's not going to be a criteria for tagging without hitting > =>some other positive scoring rules at the same time. > > You are correct except that what I suspect is missing from this discussion > is that rfcignorant really has *nothing* to do with spam. It *only* has to > do with whether one is a uunet customer. Perhaps this will clarify matters: http://www.rfc-ignorant.com/uunet.php (re: the expectation that UUNet's ARIN contact address <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> not bounce.) Seems like it was fixed in December. Old news. I've heard nothing about spite listings in RFCI on SPAM-L; if RFCI had an axe to grind, it would've eventually been reported there. Spite listings seem out of character for the organization; regardless, had there been any, they'd be easy enough to independently verify. > The people who run rfcignorant have exactly one mission in life: To cause > the whois record of uunet to provide a human being's valid name, phone > number and email address. They, for some stoopid reason refuse to do that, > but we should not confuse other RBLs that help stop spam with rfcignorant. > > We really should be providing tests that are related to spam detection. > This particular one does not; it only skews the score of legitimate uunet > customers thereby causing a higher percentage of false positives. If RFCI listings weren't correlated to spam sources, the GA would score RFCI tests low enough to be omitted. Apparently RFCI listings correlate well with spam sources, so in that respect, RFCI does in fact stop spam. Sounds like you're a victim of UUNet's 'creative network management' and blaming RFCI for pointing that out. Should we hold UUNet to a lower standard than everyone else simply because they're large? -- Bob ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
