On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 10:50 -0500, Charles Gregory wrote: > On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote: > > Qualifies what, that I get UBE that is Habeas Accredited? Should I start > > with the 40 from 'DateTheuk' in the last 8 days? > > Okay, let's be methodical. Let us indeed start with those. > > Did anyone else get them? > If, so, how did they score? > If not, then why did only Richard get them? > > Keep in mind that a 'problem' may be buried by conditions where most of > the spam still gets flagged, then blocked because of other positive > scoring tests, so we don't *see* the habeas test firing.... > I don't record hits on rules in mail that is flagged ham, but notice that > I do see the habeas rule in a couple of cases where I have deliberately > blacklisted a mail server like 'mailengine'. > > - Charles Point 1 - The Subject that was changed on the other post. JD Falk made the original change to abuse me. Go back to the archive and take a look. I just inverted it.
Point 2 - I've stated my opinions on organisations that are involved in bulk mailing, but that's all it is. An opinion. They are like axxholes, everyone has one. Point 3 - My Habeas issue is not about quantity. Most of the previous Habeas spam I did not log, and I regret that.I've set things up differently so I log each and everyone from now on. So other than my worthless word I can only cite the current ongoing issue with DateTheUk. A company that fished a watermarked address from a Facebook 'Farmville' group and then spammed it. This was raised as the IP appeared in HABEAS and for a few hours it 'vanished' from the list. It's back there now, but DateTheUk is now pumping out via an ip six decimal places up on the last octet. 80.75.69.195 WHITELISTED: sa-accredit.habeas.com The customer concerned then hopped their output to:80.75.69.201 80.75.69.201 WHITELISTED: sa-accredit.habeas.com The customer also hits on: list.dnswl.org, so they are clearly aware of the need to grease the wheels. Spamassassin was passing the stuff at -9. It's not about the listing of a Rogue Customer, it's why they are not delisted for doing it - this would give some kind of confidence back. My personal view is no blind eye should be turned to any spammer, especially one coming from a so called reputable source. Point 4 - All that is largely irrelevant to this list, but my point of interest is why a commercial white list appears in Spamassassin with the default scores set the way they are? It's perfectly reasonable to ask. It could be expanded to ask if there are any plans to include whitelists from other vendors in the default, such as Apache donator Barracuda? Perhaps emailreg.org with a -4 score in the next SA release? Much that the personality battles and offlist threats and abuse amuse me, my question is perfectly reasonable, has it's foundation in fact and is on topic.
