> > 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 <krem...@kreme.com> wrote: > > I changed my HABEAS scores ages ago: > > > > score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI -1.0 > > score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI -0.5 > > score HABEAS_CHECKED 0 > > > > I'm seriously considering changing them to 1.0, 0.01, and 0, respectively. > > > > I seem to ONLY see the headers in spam messages. It's a shame the defaults > > in SA are still set absurd values. On 17.03.09 02:25, Aaron Wolfe wrote: > Funny, I mentioned to Chris off list that I've been using positive > scores on all the Habeas accredited spam rules for quite some time > with good results. Some of their junk is pure spam, more is the type > of shady commerical junk that technically might not be "spam" but is > still crap nobody wants, at least nobody here :) > > I completely agree that SA should not be giving such high negative > scores to Habeas. There are a lot of folks who run the defaults, and > they will get false negatives simply from these rules. 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 - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. The 3 biggets disasters: Hiroshima 45, Tschernobyl 86, Windows 95
