On 7/3/2009 12:19 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 10:14,
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk<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.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5905 has some
information on the background; we asked SURBL for their top queried
domains that they considered nonspam, and it was in that list. SURBL
have always been scrupulous in their operations and listing criteria
fwiw.
Going by bug 5905 though, and this report, we should probably remove
it from the whitelist.
As you can see, I was the one who started that bug .-)
