On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 18:27 +0200, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> (You do know what "legacy" means, right?)
>
> > Sure - do you? If it's left in the core code because the URI never
> > listed CC in the past that makes it legacy to me. If we consider that
> > argument now that cc *is* listed by urbl then the legacy argument that
> > was used, is gone. It becomes an SA issue for effectively white listing
> > *from urbl lookups* a known rotten/black listed uri.
>
> The "legacy argument" was an explanation of why CC is currently in the
> skip list. As, such, it still stands. It still explains why CC is
> currently skipped.
>
> It was never an argument for why CC should be skipped. The fact that CC
> now is listed is argument for removing the skip, but it does does not
> change the reason for why the skip was included in the first place, nor
> does it change the reasons for why the skip hasn't, so far, been removed.
>
> >> Seems like you think missing a score of 0.25 would be worth money to
> >> someone. I think that's pretty silly.
>
> > Depends. If you are sitting at 4.79 and the have a block score of 5.00
> > it makes a difference.
>
> Do you mean to say that a large enough amount of mail from CC get from
> 4.76 to 4.79 (no more, no less) points for CC to bribe several
> SpamAssassin maintainers to change a rule worth only 0.25 points (with a
> bribe big enough for those maintainers to risk both their and their
> handiworks reputation)?
>
> Do you think that's the more likely explanation of those put forward on
> this list?
>
> >> Calling it whitelisting also seems silly.
>
> > Jonas I always thought you were grown up enough to be able to fill in
> > the blanks here. White listed from URI lookups. Please, don't be silly
> > now.
>
> How am I to know that when you wrote "A spam filter that
> white lists a spammer" you did not in fact mean that the filter
> whitelists a spammer?
>
> How I am to know that when you wrote "SpamAssassin effectively white
> listing spammers" you did not in fact imply that SpamAssassin is
> whitelisting spammers?
>
> If you think I'm silly for believing that you mean what you write, then
> please keep considering me silly.
>
> /Jonas
Sure will, sillyass.
