jdow writes: > From: "Chris Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >* Tony Finch wrote (05/11/06 17:43): > >> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Michael Scheidell wrote: > >> > >>> So? Build something better. Its open source. Don't use the RFCI scores, > >>> drop them, stop bithing about somehting YOU can change. > >> > >> Well, I've added a -2 for email from Amazon, but I thought other people > >> might like a warning. > > > > Thanks. Warning appreciated. > > > > I think that the people who made derogatory claims about "Tony's logic", > > or claimed that "you don't understand" had failed to appreciate what > > "These messages are wanted by their recipients so should not be > > scored as spam by SpamAssassin" means. Anyone who disagrees with that > > piece of logic would appear to be using Spamassassin for a purpose that > > its designers didn't think of. > > Tony's phrasing implied that he thought the scoring was so wrong > that it should be modified by the people who wrote the rule and ran > it against mass checks. That logic is dead wrong. > > The correct phrasing might have indicated there is a problem for some > sites with Amazon failing RFCi requiring a special rule to negate > Amazon.com's negative scores on RFCi. > > Demanding that the RFCi rules vanish into the night just is not going > to fly. And it indicates flawed thought processes.
Well, some of them recently *have* -- they were just becoming very poor indicators of spam/nonspam status, and that's what SpamAssassin rules are used for. --j.
