On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:11 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk<rich...@buzzhost.co.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 12:06 +0200, Yet Another Ninja wrote: >> On 7/3/2009 11:14 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote: >> > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:06 +0100, Justin Mason wrote: >> >> I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients. >> >> Are you reporting these spams to them? >> >> >> > Yes - but you would thing a log full of 550's may be a clue. >> > >> > What concerns me is SpamAssassin effectively white listing spammers. >> > White listing should be a user option - not something added in a >> > nefarious manner. At least it is clear to see with Spamassassin which is >> > a plus - but I cannot pretend that I am not disappointed to find a >> > whitelisted 'spammer net' in the core rules. I'm wondering why (other >> > than MONEY) it would have ended up in there? >> >> this has a historical reasons and its not about "whitelisting spammers" >> >> Many moons ago, when SA started doing URI lookup with the SpamcopURI >> plugin, there was only one URI BL: SURBL and to spare it from >> unnecessary queries, the skip list was implemented avoid the extar load >> and a number of ESPs which back then were considered to never send >> UBE/UCE were added. >> Times have changed and there's option regarding URI lookups, in public >> and private BLs. Also, URI Bls can handle way more traffic than they >> could 6 or 7 years back. >> >> There have been numerous requests to get some of these skip entries >> removed but non was honoured. >> >> The bottom line is that its trivial and cheaper to write a static URI >> rule to tag a URL (if you really need to) and which doesn't affect the >> globe, than hammering the BLs with zillion of extra queries. >> >> SA is conservative and caters to a VERY wide user base, with VERY >> different understanding what is UBE/UCE so while everyone saves reources >> on useless queries, you still havea way to score constantcontact with >> 100 if its your choice. >> >> >> axb > Should that be Hi$torical Rea$ons ? ;-) There is no current excuse and > this kind of alleged legacy rubbish needs to be pulled out. > > As it stands the is simply white listing a bulker. A spam filter that > white lists a spammer - how bizarre ! I'm cynical. The only logical > reason I can see for anything of this nature is money changing hands. > >
I think the point was that the URIBL's are never going to be listing these domains, so why waste time looking them up, right or wrong. It's not really an endorsement by SA, just a way to save resources since this check is not going to return results anyway. Don't know if this theory is correct, but if this is the only "special treatment" given to constant contact, then I don't really think there is any conspiracy here. Why do a check that isn't going to work anyway? Hopefully the other rules will judge the messages on their own merit, they do seem to catch *some* of the junk coming out of c.c.
