Matt, You're being too nice. It set my habeas rule to -0.01. You never know when you only .01 away from making it a spam :)
Gary -----Original Message----- From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 5:19 PM To: John Andersen; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Habeas (again) At 03:59 PM 3/16/04 -0900, John Andersen wrote: >Virtually all the pill pushers getting thru in my set up are useing >X-Habeas-SWE headers now, and getting a -6 score as a result. > >I'm going to have to kill this rule. > >I report them, but they are in brazil and probably out of Habeas's reach. None of this is even remotely new. They've been doing this for at least two months now. Quite frankly, I'm absolutely shocked to hear that there's anyone on the list who hasn't reduced the score of this rule, or zeroed it out yet. For all of those that haven't yet, I'd strongly suggest doing so until SA 3 comes out, or the spammers abate their abuse (unlikely). I've been running with the rule set to -0.1 for quite a while.. Just enough to be of some minor benefit to ham, since my autolearn threshold is slightly negative, but not enough to be of any benefit for spammers. If you use bayes I'd also suggest adding the habeas headers to bayes_ignore_header statements. This will prevent bayes from considering it as a nonspam token. Prior to the outbreak, only nonspam had it, so a lot of pill spams were getting low bayes scores on top of the habeas benefit.
