Re: BOTNET Exceptions for Today

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:56:27 -0500
Andy Sutton <newslists@pessimists.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 13:42 -0700, John Rudd wrote:
> > b) Botnet gets 0% false positives at one of my services (not just
> > "borked DNS == bad", as you're suggesting, but actual "everything
> > that triggered botnet was actually spam"). And, yes, I actually
> > check
>
> I never suggested that.

Um, you suggested _exactly_ that. From the message John was replying to (<1187728204.6617.42.camel@sutton-laptop>):

  On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 13:08 -0700, Bret Miller wrote:   > When I see on the list that many people run botnet with ZERO false   > positives, I have to ask myself, "how?

  Anyone who claims that isn't really looking at the email they are   blocking, or don't believe borked DNS qualify as a FP.

> A bit tetchy today?

When you're presenting hyperbole as reasoned commentary, seems to me John has a right to be tetchy.

If you had said what you said in this message originally, I suspect you would have gotten a different response.

Do you need help?
In addition to our free technical library, Pantek provides professional IT services to companies who utilize Open Source software: Learn more about Pantek's Technical Support offerings Place an order for 24/7/365 Technical Support here Learn more about Pantek, who we are, and what we do Chat with a Live Operator Related spamassassin.apache.org Links users Request more information about Pantek

Mike. Received on Tue Aug 21 21:53:26 2007