On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
On 01/03/18 19:50, David Jones wrote:
On 03/01/2018 12:29 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for the
persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB
whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect:
-0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record
[199.127.240.84 listed in iadb.isipp.com]
-0.1 RCVD_IN_IADB_SPF RBL: IADB: Sender publishes SPF record
-0.1 RCVD_IN_IADB_OPTIN RBL: IADB: All mailing list mail is opt-in
-0.0 RCVD_IN_IADB_SENDERID RBL: IADB: Sender publishes Sender ID record
-0.0 RCVD_IN_IADB_LISTED RBL: Participates in the IADB system
-0.1 RCVD_IN_IADB_DK RBL: IADB: Sender publishes Domain Keys record
-0.1 RCVD_IN_IADB_VOUCHED RBL: ISIPP IADB lists as vouched-for sender
There is simply no reason in the interest of SA as an antispam solution
to publish all those rules.
Sure there is: to allow the site admin the ability to make fine-grained
decisions in local rules.
I am concerned when the default settings in SA effectively facilitate
marketing companies to stuff my Inbox full of junk.
-0.6 points makes the difference?
Perhaps the default scores need to be reviewed, but simply having the
rules isn't problematic.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Once more, please; I missed it the last time: what's the difference
between "Quantitative Easing" and "Counterfeiting"?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11 days until Albert Einstein's 139th Birthday
