Neil Schwartzman wrote:
On 2009-01-06 22:19:39 GMT LuKreme kremels at kreme.com wrote:
If you want the real history of Habeas in a nutshell, the company went
to hell when Anne Mitchell left (the same Anne Mitchell who was part
of MAPS back in the day). She's now at the Institute for Spam
On 2009-01-06 22:19:39 GMT LuKreme kremels at kreme.com wrote:
If you want the real history of Habeas in a nutshell, the company went
to hell when Anne Mitchell left (the same Anne Mitchell who was part
of MAPS back in the day). She's now at the Institute for Spam and
Internet Public Policy
Neil Schwartzman neil.schwartz...@returnpath.net writes:
As to the complaint submission issues noted here are concerned, the best
point of contact moving forward for SA users would be
sa-ab...@senderscorecertified.com (please don¹t use my personal address as I
travel frequently, and our
McDonald, Dan a écrit :
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 13:21 +0300, Sergey Kovalev wrote:
mouss wrote:
On 6-Jan-2009, at 08:51, Greg Troxel wrote:
I realize that HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI has or had a reasonable ruleqa
value. But, I wonder if SA should apply higher standards than that, and
not give
mouss wrote:
On 6-Jan-2009, at 08:51, Greg Troxel wrote:
I realize that HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI has or had a reasonable ruleqa
value. But, I wonder if SA should apply higher standards than that, and
not give negative scores to databases that don't behave reasonably.
I have
# Disable Habeas
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 13:21 +0300, Sergey Kovalev wrote:
mouss wrote:
On 6-Jan-2009, at 08:51, Greg Troxel wrote:
I realize that HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI has or had a reasonable ruleqa
value. But, I wonder if SA should apply higher standards than that, and
not give negative scores to
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Anthony Peacock wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
On 6-Jan-2009, at 08:51, Greg Troxel wrote:
I realize that HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI has or had a reasonable ruleqa
value. But, I wonder if SA should apply higher standards than that, and
not give negative scores to databases that don't
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Jon Trulson wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Anthony Peacock wrote:
I zeroed the scores for all of these rules about a year ago. They were
only hitting on SPAM emails and pushing them into the FN range.
I second that - habeas stopped being useful a long time ago (IMO of
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Jon Trulson wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Anthony Peacock wrote:
I zeroed the scores for all of these rules about a year ago. They were
only hitting on SPAM emails and pushing them into the FN range.
I second that - habeas
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 04:37:37PM +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
It appears to me that the HABEAS rules are hitting only a very tiny
fraction of
mail, many of the nightly mass-checks don't have a hit at all (or is it
that those
checks don't contain any network checks?). The
Theo Van Dinter felic...@apache.org writes:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 04:37:37PM +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
It appears to me that the HABEAS rules are hitting only a very tiny
fraction of mail, many of the nightly mass-checks don't have a hit
at all (or is it that those checks don't
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 19:31 +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
It appears to me that the HABEAS rules are hitting only a very tiny fraction
of
mail, many of the nightly mass-checks don't have a hit at all (or is it that
those
checks don't contain any network checks?). The aggregated view shows no
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 15:37, Karsten Bräckelmann
guent...@rudersport.de wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 19:31 +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
It appears to me that the HABEAS rules are hitting only a very tiny fraction
of
mail, many of the nightly mass-checks don't have a hit at all (or is it that
LuKreme a écrit :
On 6-Jan-2009, at 08:51, Greg Troxel wrote:
I realize that HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI has or had a reasonable ruleqa
value. But, I wonder if SA should apply higher standards than that, and
not give negative scores to databases that don't behave reasonably.
This has been
LuKreme wrote:
On 6-Jan-2009, at 08:51, Greg Troxel wrote:
I realize that HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI has or had a reasonable ruleqa
value. But, I wonder if SA should apply higher standards than that, and
not give negative scores to databases that don't behave reasonably.
This has been brought up
I have once again been spammed by a habeas-accredited sender. This time
it's also in senderbase, and thus got a whopping -8.6 from those two
combined. Perhaps one rule should be dropped - two rules controlled by
the same organization having additive scores doesn't seem right.
spample and SA
Greg Troxel wrote on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:51:57 -0500:
In https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5902 I asked
I read that bug report now and followed the link to the ruleqa. I have a
slightly
different twist on that: should rules with such a low hit rate (whatever they
hit)
-Original Message-
From: Kai Schaetzl [mailto:mailli...@conactive.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:31 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: more habeas spam
There is also bug 5977 for BSP who still doesn't have a clear way to file a
complaint. I just received
Jason Bertoch wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Kai Schaetzl [mailto:mailli...@conactive.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:31 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: more habeas spam
There is also bug 5977 for BSP who still doesn't have a clear way to file a
complaint. I
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Greg Troxel wrote:
In https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5902 I asked
why HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI still got a negative score, and after posting
in public did get a response from habeas. But my experience has been
that non-public complaints are ignored.
On 6-Jan-2009, at 08:51, Greg Troxel wrote:
I realize that HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI has or had a reasonable ruleqa
value. But, I wonder if SA should apply higher standards than that,
and
not give negative scores to databases that don't behave reasonably.
This has been brought up on the list
21 matches
Mail list logo
