On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 18:53 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 14:24 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 07:26 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>
> > > [...] Why are we covering for their mistakes and
> > > supporting a company that profits from sending spam, even if its only
> > > sometimes, by whitelisting them?
>
> "We" aren't. If you would have closely followed the thread, you would
> have understood that this is about a DNS [BW]L listing that is *not*
> part of the stock rules.
>
> We don't operate white or blacklists. Neither do we use the list in
> question by default.
>
>
> > [...] but as it's being discussed here - I'm guessing
> > somewhere in SA something is 'greasing the wheels' for them.
>
> This is plain FUD.
>
> Richard, you're eloquently showing off you didn't read the thread.
> You're even clearly stating you don't know, but yet accuse SA of helping
> an unrelated business.
>
> Stop the guessing and do check the code and rules before claiming
> anything.
>
> guenther
>
>
Guenther - you're eloquently showing off you didn't understand what I
have posted - despite quoting it:
"I'm guessing somewhere in SA something is 'greasing the wheels' for
them."
I don't see that I'm stating it's in the core code and rules there - or
did you just 'guess' or 'imagine' that is what I meant? Clearly there
are whitelists out there that can be used with SA {which puts it on
topic} that WILL grease the wheels for them. Does that clarification
help?
On a personal note I'm sorry you so obviously feel sore at me. Get over
it. I hate spammers with an utter passion - make no mistake about it.
Constant Spamcrap are one of a couple of companies I despise and I can
assure you I'm moderating my views for the list - the simplest mention
of them makes me want to hurt people.
