From: "LuKreme" <krem...@kreme.com>
Sent: Thursday, 2009/December/03 20:55
On Dec 3, 2009, at 13:43, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" <rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
> wrote:
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 11:23 -0700, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Dec 2, 2009, at 12:59 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Look, get a room. Or at least take this twisted courtship dance offlist
and spare us, please.
With all the animosity on this issue I decided to give the HABEAS
rules a score, a negligible score to be sure, just to see what the
state of HABEAS is for me today.
In the last four days - nothing either spam or ham.
Those seeing HABEAS hits: are the hits ancient haiku hits or are they
the modern DNS test version? I imagine the haiku is still used by
some spammers. The DNS tests should legitimately show a rather small
percentage of spam. It appears (weasel word notice) ReturnPath puts
its members through a wringer to get the approval levels.
And how was the email determined to be unsolicited? (I believe in one
case it was a "never used spam trap address.")
Let's lay some facts out on the table rather than heap a load of
anecdotal poo on JD over various HABEAS hits.
And JD, I don't see on your site what it "costs" people to get listed
on your DNS approval lists other than some tests and documentation. Is
it possible spammers simply submit some buttered up documentation, get
approved, and accept getting it knocked back off your lists rapidly as
a business "time" expense?
Less shouting and more data and facts seems to be called for on both
sides. And for the nonce I'll grant both sides the legitimacy of their
frustrations on this HABEAS thing.
I note that JD is quite willing to discuss (and seemed to recommend)
a lowered default score. That seems quite reasonable.
{^_^} (Another JD, Jolly Dirty Old Woman type.)
