ssage-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Bilbee
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 12:29 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] WHITELIST HABEAS
>
> We have also turned off the HABEAS whitelist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Bilbee
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 12:29 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] WHITELIST HABEAS
>
> We have also turned off the HABEAS whitelist due to large amounts o
004 10:31 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] WHITELIST HABEAS
>
>
>
> We're getting a LOT of spam with HABEAS headers, presumably because the
> spammers are using hijacked systems. We have had to turn off
> that feature.
>
> As long as s
We're getting a LOT of spam with HABEAS headers, presumably because the
spammers are using hijacked systems. We have had to turn off that feature.
As long as systems can be hijacked, Habeas and SPF won't be worth very much.
> Do most people use WHITELIST HABEAS? I'm thinking of turning
> this o
o:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 7:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] WHITELIST HABEAS
>Could you move this from whitelisting to weighting in order to help
>protect from such things for non-Pro users? That might make a lot of
>sense. This is
Scott,
Whatever happened to the feature where Declude spits out a million dollars?
Eagerly waiting, but getting frustrated.
Matt :)
R. Scott Perry wrote:
Could you move this from whitelisting to weighting in order to help
protect from such things for non-Pro users? That might make a lot o
on 1/12/04 9:59 AM, Larry Craddock wrote:
> Good point and I do agree with one minor counter point ... we have little to
> no feedback about how *the police are handling the situation.
Plus how many spam messages will be whitelisted while the "police"
investigate the incident and the courts go th
Could you move this from whitelisting to weighting in order to help
protect from such things for non-Pro users? That might make a lot of
sense. This is just some header code, and that's all it takes.
You can use:
HABEAS habeas x x -5 0
in the global.cfg file to accomplish
th by their service provider, or, failing any
satisfactory remedial action, listing in our Habeas Infringers List.]
Larry
- Original Message -
From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [
I've turned it off temporarily due to the storm of HABEAS-certified spam
this weekend. Hopefully, we will something from Habeas about what caused the
problem and what they are doing about it.
-Dave Doherty
Skywaves, Inc.
- Original Message -
From: "Larry Craddock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T
It's unsafe to whitelist in general unless you have control over what is
sending, or a good relationship with the sender. Habeas is totally not
that. This should be a weighted test instead of something that gets
whitelisted. Maybe Scott could move this to the same type functionality
used in
But Scott, do you leave your front door unlocked if there is a bugler
actively on the lose?
Could you move this from whitelisting to weighting in order to help
protect from such things for non-Pro users? That might make a lot of
sense. This is just some header code, and that's all it takes.
Do most people use WHITELIST HABEAS? I'm thinking of turning this off since
the large majority of spammers have already demonstrated their willingness
to ignore the legality of their activities.
That's kind of like asking if you should move your store to another town,
since the store next to your
13 matches
Mail list logo
