On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:56:27 -0500 Andy Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 13:42 -0700, John Rudd wrote: > > b) Botnet gets 0% false positives at one of my services (not just > > "borked DNS == bad", as you're suggesting, but actual "everything > > that triggered botnet was actually spam"). And, yes, I actually > > check > > I never suggested that. Um, you suggested _exactly_ that. From the message John was replying to (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>): On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 13:08 -0700, Bret Miller wrote: > When I see on the list that many people run botnet with ZERO false > positives, I have to ask myself, "how? Anyone who claims that isn't really looking at the email they are blocking, or don't believe borked DNS qualify as a FP. > A bit tetchy today? When you're presenting hyperbole as reasoned commentary, seems to me John has a right to be tetchy. If you had said what you said in this message originally, I suspect you would have gotten a different response. Mike.
