On 10/18, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > So you're calling this without evidence, and actually even without > suspicion. > > What about doing at least some minimal research first? You could check > ruleqa results.
Why are you arguing with me? I just thought there was enough possibility of this being misconfigured, and little enough effort to check, that it was worth asking. I did check the ruleqa details on a few relevant tests first. The results are very inconsistent between submitters, but I'm not sure that means anything. And I'm not sure if the people with all zeros didn't submit this time or have their systems misconfigured. http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20101016-r1023212-n/__RCVD_IN_DNSWL/detail http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20101016-r1023212-n/RCVD_IN_XBL/detail http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20101016-r1023212-n/RCVD_IN_PBL/detail > I don't think this cold-calling without suspicion was warranted. I'd How is it not warranted? Did I somehow impune the honor of the submitters? How can it be wrong to ask? > assume those who contribute to the mass-checks are smart enough to set > up their production system *and* mass-check system. Given the small amount of work to verify, I'd prefer not to assume. > While you are certainly right that this must be set up correctly, I > believe the way you brought up the topic leaves room for improvement. Always, of course. I would love suggestions. I came here with the social skills of a geek with a concern, not a master dignitary. I would hope that's okay. > Anyway, with most mass-check contributors, this is the wrong list > anyway... I first asked in the IRC channel and waited a few hours. Then I posted to this list asking if it could be done. What is more appropriate? -- "I don't want people who want to dance, I want people who have to dance." --George Balanchine http://www.ChaosReigns.com
