Re: [Fwd: Re: Spamassasin over RBL, was Re: rblsmtpd -t?]
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 10:25:12AM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2002, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > no, it's not relative. there is an absolute, black-and-white
> > criteria which you are too stupid to see: if a site is part of the
> > spam problem then it should be black-listed. if it is not part of
> > the problem then it shouldn't be listed.
> Pray tell then, *when* is a site part of the spam problem?
> Please share your infallible, absolute, black-and-white criteria for
> that, because obviously we were missing it all along.
yes, you have missed it because i've mentioned it several times in this
thread. here it is spelt out so that even you or jason should be able
to understand it:
1. is the site an open relay?
2. is the site a spam source?
3. does the site host any spamvertised sites?
4. does the site provide any other spam support services?
if any of the above are true, then the site should be black-listed.
regardless of company size.
see, the criteria are very simple: are they spammers or do they assist
spammmers? no subjectivity, no exceptions, no different rules for the
big end of town.
craig sanders <email@example.com>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com