On fre 18 dec 2009 10:23:48 CET, Christian Brel wrote
If you like you can transparently disable the DNSWLs.
I found it much more useful to apply them as blocklists and give the a
+4/+8 myself - but that's a personal choice.
and "No, hits=0.7 required=10.0 tests=SPF_SOFTFAIL" is also a persona
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:21:00 -0700
LuKreme wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:32, Christian Brel
> > wrote:
>
> > the issue of having that score
> > reduced in favour of a known commercial bulk mailer is undesirable.
>
> The trouble is you seem to consider ALL commercial senders to be
> spammer
On Dec 18, 2009, at 2:07, "Daryl C. W. O'Shea"
wrote:
I stand firm on my opinion that our principle of safe for most users
is
the logical reason for including DNSWLs.
Just to be clear, despite my dislike of the HABEAS rules, I am not a
tinfoil-hat nutter thinking there's some conspiracy
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:07:55 -0500
"Daryl C. W. O'Shea" wrote:
> > If everything is open and transparent give the default user the
> > option to *enable* them and score them zero, unless - of course -
> > there is some kind of logical reason for these mad scoring spam
> > assisting rules that fav
On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:32, Christian Brel > wrote:
the issue of having that score
reduced in favour of a known commercial bulk mailer is undesirable.
The trouble is you seem to consider ALL commercial senders to be
spammers. That's just not true.
On fre 18 dec 2009 10:07:55 CET, "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" wrote
If you like you can transparently disable the DNSWLs.
or create a bug to have dnswl use trusted_networks from local.cf in
spamassassin
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
pgpfoovQHfqN5.pgp
Description: PGP di
On 18/12/2009 3:32 AM, Christian Brel wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:24:45 -0500
> "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" wrote:
>
>> Reputation type rules (such as DNSWLs) are probably the only (or
>> certainly one of the very few) types of rules that you can weight
>> heavily negatively. This is due to the nat
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:44:32 -0500
"Daryl C. W. O'Shea" wrote:
> Please stop beating the -4 and -8 horse. We agree.
>
> Daryl
>
>
Then fix it and show who really is in charge of this project?
--
This e-mail and any attachments may form pure opinion and may not have
any factual foundation.
On 18/12/2009 3:09 AM, LuKreme wrote:
> On 18-Dec-2009, at 00:24, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>> From the data we have from mass-checks we are erring a very small amount
>> on the side of caution by not disabling the whitelists by default.
>
>
> I guess that the real issue that I have with the whol
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:24:45 -0500
"Daryl C. W. O'Shea" wrote:
> Reputation type rules (such as DNSWLs) are probably the only (or
> certainly one of the very few) types of rules that you can weight
> heavily negatively. This is due to the nature of an open source
> product (or even given enough
On fre 18 dec 2009 08:13:31 CET, Christian Brel wrote
* [212.159.7.100 listed in list.dnswl.org]
Yet the same IP is on and off SORBS and part of an ongoing spam
problem. Perhaps this can be reviewed and given a zero score by default?
see dnswl homepage, there is NONE, LOW, MED, HI, the ab
On 18-Dec-2009, at 00:24, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> From the data we have from mass-checks we are erring a very small amount
> on the side of caution by not disabling the whitelists by default.
I guess that the real issue that I have with the whole HABEAS thing is the
magnitude of the default
101 - 112 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
