On 7/3/2009 11:14 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:06 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
Are you reporting these spams to them?
Yes - but you would thing a log full of 550's may be a clue.
What concerns me is SpamAssassin effectively white listing spammers.
White listing should be a user option - not something added in a
nefarious manner. At least it is clear to see with Spamassassin which is
a plus - but I cannot pretend that I am not disappointed to find a
whitelisted 'spammer net' in the core rules. I'm wondering why (other
than MONEY) it would have ended up in there?
this has a historical reasons and its not about "whitelisting spammers"
Many moons ago, when SA started doing URI lookup with the SpamcopURI
plugin, there was only one URI BL: SURBL and to spare it from
unnecessary queries, the skip list was implemented avoid the extar load
and a number of ESPs which back then were considered to never send
UBE/UCE were added.
Times have changed and there's option regarding URI lookups, in public
and private BLs. Also, URI Bls can handle way more traffic than they
could 6 or 7 years back.
There have been numerous requests to get some of these skip entries
removed but non was honoured.
The bottom line is that its trivial and cheaper to write a static URI
rule to tag a URL (if you really need to) and which doesn't affect the
globe, than hammering the BLs with zillion of extra queries.
SA is conservative and caters to a VERY wide user base, with VERY
different understanding what is UBE/UCE so while everyone saves reources
on useless queries, you still havea way to score constantcontact with
100 if its your choice.
axb
