On Tue, February 26, 2008 09:49, Anthony Peacock wrote:
> Does anyone know anything about this. At this stage I am planning on
> changing the score for all HABEAS_ACCREDITED_??? rules to 0, to make
> them neutral to the score.
score 0 disables the test
Anthony Peacock wrote:
I have had a look around the http://www.habeas.com/ website and can't
really see how to check the company in question, or make a complaint.
There is a form for asking them to ask the company to remove these
addresses from their mailing list, but I don't want to have to
Jason Haar writes:
> Anthony Peacock wrote:
> >
> > I have had a look around the http://www.habeas.com/ website and can't
> > really see how to check the company in question, or make a complaint.
> > There is a form for asking them to ask the company to remove these
> > addresses from their mai
On 2/26/2008 10:57 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
Jason Haar writes:
Anthony Peacock wrote:
I have had a look around the http://www.habeas.com/ website and can't
really see how to check the company in question, or make a complaint.
There is a form for asking them to ask the company to remove these
a
Hi Justin,
Justin Mason wrote:
Jason Haar writes:
Anthony Peacock wrote:
I have had a look around the http://www.habeas.com/ website and can't
really see how to check the company in question, or make a complaint.
There is a form for asking them to ask the company to remove these
addresses fr
> From: Anthony Peacock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:49:11 +
> To: SpamAssassin Users
> Subject: HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI
>
> Hi,
>
> I have just received a number of spam emails which got through the
> filtering system because they hit the HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI rule, which
>
Jason Haar wrote:
> Anthony Peacock wrote:
>>
>> I have had a look around the http://www.habeas.com/ website and can't
>> really see how to check the company in question, or make a complaint.
>> There is a form for asking them to ask the company to remove these
>> addresses from their mailing list
Hi,
Following up to myself...
Anthony Peacock wrote:
Hi Justin,
Justin Mason wrote:
Jason Haar writes:
Anthony Peacock wrote:
I have had a look around the http://www.habeas.com/ website and
can't really see how to check the company in question, or make a
complaint. There is a form for aski
If I recall correctly...
This Habeas is some sort of a braindead business idea to insert an
unauthenticated header in bodies of "legitimate" emails coming from
their customers, to assure spam filters that the email is legitimate.
Kind of like SPF, but implemented by third graders with multiple
l
I strongly recommend to block Habeas entirely.
They are a yet another garbage email company.
i
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 03:10:54PM +, Anthony Peacock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Following up to myself...
>
> Anthony Peacock wrote:
>> Hi Justin,
>>
>> Justin Mason wrote:
>>> Jason Haar writes:
Antho
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Igor Chudov wrote:
If I recall correctly...
This Habeas is some sort of a braindead business idea to insert an
unauthenticated header in bodies of "legitimate" emails coming from
their customers, to assure spam filters that the email is legitimate.
Kind of like SPF, but im
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:18:32AM -0600, Igor Chudov wrote:
> This Habeas is some sort of a braindead business idea to insert an
> unauthenticated header in bodies of "legitimate" emails coming from
> their customers, to assure spam filters that the email is legitimate.
The original Habeas SWE w
Igor Chudov wrote:
If I recall correctly...
This Habeas is some sort of a braindead business idea to insert an
unauthenticated header in bodies of "legitimate" emails coming from
their customers, to assure spam filters that the email is legitimate.
Not anymore. They've long since switched to
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 08:49 +, Anthony Peacock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have just received a number of spam emails which got through the
> filtering system because they hit the HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI rule, which
> give them -8. They all came to role based addresses that are never used
> to outgoi
Hi,
ram wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 08:49 +, Anthony Peacock wrote:
Hi,
I have just received a number of spam emails which got through the
filtering system because they hit the HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI rule, which
give them -8. They all came to role based addresses that are never used
to
On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 08:21 +, Anthony Peacock wrote:
>
> For anyone interested here is the full email (well one of them)...
>
> http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/habeas-misfire.eml
>
Looks to me as though someone has found a way to abuse ning.com's
platform/systems. I suspect they'd be v
On 26.02.08 11:18, Igor Chudov wrote:
> If I recall correctly...
>
> This Habeas is some sort of a braindead business idea to insert an
> unauthenticated header in bodies of "legitimate" emails coming from
> their customers, to assure spam filters that the email is legitimate.
afaiuc, Habeas is
On 2/27/2008 10:16 AM, Derek Harding wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 08:21 +, Anthony Peacock wrote:
For anyone interested here is the full email (well one of them)...
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/habeas-misfire.eml
Looks to me as though someone has found a way to abuse ning.com's
pl
Derek Harding writes:
> On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 08:21 +, Anthony Peacock wrote:
> >
> > For anyone interested here is the full email (well one of them)...
> >
> > http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/habeas-misfire.eml
> >
>
> Looks to me as though someone has found a way to abuse ning.com's
> http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/habeas-misfire.eml
disable DomainKey plugin and add DKIM plugin will help on that msg
and search on DKIM mta scores for not being sent from a DKIM signer
Hi Benny,
Benny Pedersen wrote:
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/habeas-misfire.eml
disable DomainKey plugin and add DKIM plugin will help on that msg
and search on DKIM mta scores for not being sent from a DKIM signer
I will have a look at this.
But I have already made sufficient chang
The wiki now has an email address to report Habeas-accredited spam:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI
pgp8bfg8GvsBB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 19:46 -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> The wiki now has an email address to report Habeas-accredited spam:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI
Thanks Greg, I've reported it to them
--
KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
signature.asc
Description: This
On 16-Mar-2009, at 16:40, Chris wrote:
-8.0 HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI RBL: Habeas Accredited Confirmed Opt-In or
Better
[208.82.16.109 listed in
I changed my HABEAS scores ages ago:
score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI -1.0
score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:42 AM, LuKreme wrote:
> On 16-Mar-2009, at 16:40, Chris wrote:
>>
>> -8.0 HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI RBL: Habeas Accredited Confirmed Opt-In or
>> Better
>> [208.82.16.109 listed in
>
>
> I changed my HABEAS scores ages ago:
> > On 16-Mar-2009, at 16:40, Chris wrote:
> >> -8.0 HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI RBL: Habeas Accredited Confirmed Opt-In or
> >> Better
> >> [208.82.16.109 listed in
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:42 AM, LuKreme wrote:
> > I changed my HABEAS scores age
2009/3/17 Matus UHLAR - fantomas :
>> > On 16-Mar-2009, at 16:40, Chris wrote:
>> >> -8.0 HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI RBL: Habeas Accredited Confirmed Opt-In or
>> >> Better
>> >> [208.82.16.109 listed in
>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:42 AM, LuKreme
On 17-Mar-2009, at 03:08, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I still think it's much better to report them to habeas for
spamming...
Why? My time is valuable, and I don't have any interest in being an
unpaid volunteer for a commercial service. It's very simple, I don't
see Habeas headers in l
On 17/03/09 5:08 AM, "Matus UHLAR - fantomas" wrote:
> I still think it's much better to report them to habeas for spamming...
> COI means confirmed opt-in. If you did subscribe, it is NOT spam whether
> you want it or not. Isn't it good to have someone who will sue spammers?
Matus,
Habeas had
On 17/03/09 6:41 AM, "LuKreme" wrote:
> On 17-Mar-2009, at 03:08, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> I still think it's much better to report them to habeas for
>> spamming...
>
> Why? My time is valuable, and I don't have any interest in being an
> unpaid volunteer for a commercial service.
Wel
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
Since February 17, we have received less than 20 complaints.
A question if I may, Neil: does returnpath run any spamtraps to see
whether your clients are indeed violating your terms? Having few
complaints is not necessarily a good metric given the
On 17/03/09 6:59 AM, "John Hardin" wrote:
> A question if I may, Neil: does returnpath run any spamtraps to see
> whether your clients are indeed violating your terms? Having few
> complaints is not necessarily a good metric given the number of people who
> will simply curse you and hit [DELETE]
some time back this was posted to the list by Scheidell and after checking
and investigating our logs, we adopted it.
is it still valid to be using, or should we modify it again
:-)
# from scheid...@secnap.net
#
score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI 2.5
tflags HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI net
#
score HABEAS_ACC
>
> I still think it's much better to report them to habeas for
> spamming...
> COI means confirmed opt-in. If you did subscribe, it is NOT
> spam whether you want it or not. Isn't it good to have
> someone who will sue spammers?
>
> --
> Matus UHLAR -
Matus
even though it is COI, what i s
RobertH wrote:
I still think it's much better to report them to habeas for
spamming...
COI means confirmed opt-in. If you did subscribe, it is NOT
spam whether you want it or not. Isn't it good to have
someone who will sue spammers?
--
Matus UHLAR -
and the reason we use that here
> From: Neil Schwartzman
>
snip
>
> Well, to each his own. I have spent a lot of time reporting spam in my
> life, (probably too much), in actual fact.
>
> My thinking in reporting spam to DNSBLs (I am or was in the top 10
> reporters at Phishtank & URIBL, high on the board at Netcraft, and
>
LuKreme wrote:
It's very simple, I don't
see Habeas headers in legitimate email, and haven't for years. I see it
in spam. I score it up. The score of -8.0 is ridiculous for something
that is so easily forged.
They haven't *used* the headers in years, either. Habeas is an IP-based
whitelis
RobertH wrote:
there is bound to be some way that those (of us or the SA Team) that want to
participate, can help you and help us at the same time.
some type of automated plugin that needs to be created that reports to us
and returnpath info relevant to stopping the bad eggs yet allowing the go
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:18 PM, J.D. Falk
wrote:
> RobertH wrote:
>
>> there is bound to be some way that those (of us or the SA Team) that want
>> to
>> participate, can help you and help us at the same time.
>>
>> some type of automated plugin that needs to be created that reports to us
>> and
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:18 PM, J.D. Falk
> wrote:
>> RobertH wrote:
>>
>
> Maia Mailguard is a neat project that uses SA/amavisd to
> provide users with a web based quarantine. When a user
> indicates that a message is spam, the system can
> automatically submit the message to Razor, Pyzor,
40 matches
Mail list logo
