Re: [sa] Re: Suggestion for use by ANY whitelist service....

[Charles Gregory <cg...@hwcn.org>]

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, richard@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> ..... the default for a spam filter should not be to give
> any weight to a white list unless the user modifies the config
> themselves specifically. It can be seen to be suspicious and offering a
> pecuniary advantage to those involved and using it.

If it turns out that the whitelists FAIL to deliver a sufficiently 
reliable 'standard' of only sending e-mails to confirmed double-opt-in 
recipients, then yes, SA should not 'favor' them. But if they offer a 
reliable way to judge mail as 'valid' (by which I mean that the recipient 
in their own sole judgement says "I wanted that") then I see no problem 
with scoring. But based on current examples (datetheuk) I have serious 
reservations that the practical reality meets this standard....

- Charles

RE: [sa] Re: Suggestion for use by ANY whitelist service....

[R-Elists <li...@abbacomm.net>]

forgive me for asking this in the middle of this thread yet in all
seriousness...

Q) what is the inverse of Spamassassin ?

i am quite certain that those in the know have spent a lot of time thinking
about HAM signatures.

maybe that isnt quite the right way to say the question...

so, what do you call it?

Ham Catcher?

Ham Identifier?

Pork Platter?

Pork Roaster?

Mail Helper?

it certainly isnt a "whitelist" thing correct??

 - rh