http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5476
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-30 06:45 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > assuming RCVD_IN_SSC_TRUSTED_COI has the same confirmed-opt-in criteria as > HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI, then -8.0 sounds fair -- it matches the other rule's > score. > Yes, the criteria seem to match. Our standard: http://www.senderscorecertified.com/standards_plus.html Consent V. Participating Senders must ensure that consent with appropriate disclosure exists prior to sending Commercial or Promotional Email Messages. 1. The only acceptable form of consent is Double Opt-In (sometimes referred to as 'Confirmed Opt-In'). The Recipient must affirmatively request to add his/her email address to a mailing list. The Recipient must receive a confirmation email and the Recipient must confirms his/her request by replying or visiting a provided URL. ----------------------------------- Also, it seems that in our case, the scoring may have to be additive. Currently an IP address that meets our COI standards is published in both zones, the plus.bondedsender.org zone for COI IP addresses, and the query.bondedsender.org zone for all qualifying member IP addresses. The query.bondedsender.org zone is the same as the two you query, sa-trusted and sa-other.bondedsender.org. So would it be proper to simply add an additional -3.7 for a positive on plus.bondedsender.org to the -4.3 default on a positive sa-trusted.bondedsender.org check? Not sure what you want to do on the sa-other if that IP is a COI IP or not. > I'm not 100% sure about changing the names of the existing rules to > RCVD_IN_SSC_* though, since people may have local customisations (score > changes > etc.) hmm. (In reply to comment #2) > assuming RCVD_IN_SSC_TRUSTED_COI has the same confirmed-opt-in criteria as > HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI, then -8.0 sounds fair -- it matches the other rule's > score. > > I'm not 100% sure about changing the names of the existing rules to > RCVD_IN_SSC_* though, since people may have local customisations (score > changes > etc.) hmm. Good point. It is actually the same reason we've not changed the zone names on our side. I suppose there is no precedent in SA then for renaming a rule? ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
