spamassassin-users December 2011 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > spamassassin-users archives
spamassassin-users: Re: SA Sorbs Usage/Rules

Re: SA Sorbs Usage/Rules

From: Noel Butler <noel.butler_at_nospam>
Date: Mon Dec 19 2011 - 12:29:22 GMT

On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 11:20 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:

> >On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 13:57 -0500, wrote:
> >> Basically, without evidence money is not charged to be delisted from any
> >> of those three lists, they're going to stay out of the default rule set.
> On 17.12.11 12:16, Noel Butler wrote:
> >Lastly, I would have thought SA dev team would have liked to see hard
> >evidence that someone was _forced_ to pay the 50 donation to be
> >delisted, because all I here is "the web site says it" which frankly
> >doesn't cut it with me, we were nobody special to SORBS, so I can't see
> >why they'd remove us for free but forcibly demand payments from others,
> >the only common ground we had with Matt back then was we were both
> >located in the same city, along with 2 million others.
> afaik, the request for donating $50 to charity (not paying SORBS! some
> people did have lied about this) was removed some time ago, and
> delisting is now done upon request.

Paying to charities correct, but hey, you know, some people can't let
the facts get in the way of a ruining a good whinge, and you're
right, it was my understanding also this was being removed from the
website some time ago, but haven't been to check it out so can not
comment one way or another.