Mailing-List: contact users-help@spamassassin.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Subject: Re: Constant Contact
From: Karsten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=E4ckelmann?= <guenther@rudersport.de>
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <4AD8E2EB.9030804@khopis.com>
References: <4AD8A427.9020707@khopis.com>
	 <200910161409.59140.gene.heskett@verizon.net>
	 <21C1A2817D124D92B3F2F55FF811F910@msys1>  <4AD8C15C.1010306@khopis.com>
	 <1255726021.4913.26.camel@monkey>  <4AD8E2EB.9030804@khopis.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:47:56 +0200
Message-Id: <1255729676.4913.48.camel@monkey>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 17:17 -0400, Adam Katz wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 14:54 -0400, Adam Katz wrote:

> > Inappropriate description.
> > 
> > Inappropriate logic. IFF the terminology used would be appropriate, you
> > rather should take the then-false listing up with the whitelist.
> 
> Already did.  I've requested the Constant Contact IPs find their way
> to HostKarma's Yellow or NOBL lists and out of the White list.

Do note that Hostkarma WHITE is not part of the stock rule-set.
Moreover, it is *your* score of a whopping -2.1 for the third-party DNS
BL test you're complaining about, that results in FNs. Last I checked
(which is a while ago, granted), I wouldn't score it that low, not even
close.

Your score, your trust. If you find yourself in the need to work around
your own trust measures, maybe the underlying issue is deeper than a
good game of whack-a-mole. And if the WHITE listing is going to be
corrected in a timely manner, the rules are obsolete -- yet here to stay
along with the hate-laden descriptions, waiting in archives for click-
happy monkeys to copy-n-paste without even thinking.


> > > meta     KHOP_CONSTANTCONTACT   __CCM_UNSUB && __CCM_RELAY
> > > describe KHOP_CONSTANTCONTACT   Constant Contact is a known spammer
> > > score    KHOP_CONSTANTCONTACT   4  # increase as needed
> > 
> > Wholly inappropriate, IMHO. Seriously.
> 
> Given ConstantContact's size, yes.  However, it should safely
> discriminate against CC's bulk mail without catching anything else by
> accident, which is what "R-Elists" requested.  Note my starting value
> of 4 so that nobody takes this too far out of context and into trouble.

I have read quite a few comments by legitimate receivers in this thread.
Makes a score of 4 feel over-board to say the least, requested by $nick
or not.

Also note, that my previous assessment is not limited to the score.


-- 
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}