I give it a small negative weight, and then a big positive weight with the
HIL IP4R test.
I see very little of bad-guy spammers using the Habeas warrant. I also see
very little in the way of useful mailers taking advantage of the warrant.
So from my traffic, Habeas is a failure.
Andrew 8)
- Original Message -
From: Jeff Kratka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Has anyone had better luck with habeas lately. I turned things off since
the
spammers jumped on.
Don't use the Declude JunkMail habeas whitelist feature:
WHITELIST HABEAS
nor
HABEAS habeas x x -3 0
the watermark
Habeas by itself was useless. A trivial amount of spammers using it.
I turned Habeas-HIL off... Too few responses to be useful. Twice in the last
year they were false positiving on AOL, so when I was using it, their weight
kept dropping.
I won't use Habeas-HUL because I refuse to complete their
- Original Message -
From: Scott Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Habeas by itself was useless. A trivial amount of spammers using it.
I turned Habeas-HIL off... Too few responses to be useful. Twice in the
last
year they were false positiving on AOL, so when I was using it, their
weight
Just noticed this in the news and didn't see it on this list.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/07/habeas_spam_lawsuit/
Glad they are doing something about it.
Meanwhile Habeas is implementing technical modifications that will render
future Habeas Warrant Mark spoofing attacks ineffective.
Based on the following link, Habeas is recommending that users no longer
rely on solely on the Habeas headers to whitelist messages:
http://habeas.com/configurationPages/spamassassin.htm
The patches Habeas provides for Spamassassin remove the weight reduction
rules based on the Habeas
Great info! Thanks Bill.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Landry
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 8:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Habeas win judgment
Based on the following link, Habeas
Andrew...
What porn filter are you using?
Bennie
- Original Message -
From: Colbeck, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Habeas Porn
Today's related counts:
My own Habeas filter: 17
HIL: 258
Yes. Quite overwhelming actually.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Geiser
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 3:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Habeas Porn
Has anybody seen the crazy amount of porn spam being
Most people have stopped giving Habeas much negative weight, based on the
massive abuse of their mark by a spam gang hosting their pharmacy websites
in China. Habeas was very slow to populate their HIL database of known
abusers to counteract the abuse. Some folks on this list have given up on
That's why I stopped using it. To much junk coming in with the Habeas
headers that were spam.
Jeff Kratka
*
TymeWyse Internet
P.O.Box 84 - 110 Ecklund St., Canyonville, OR 97417
tel/fax: (541) 839-6027 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes.
At 03:45 PM 2/27/2004, you wrote:
Has anybody seen the crazy amount of porn spam being sent with the Habeas
headers?
---
Sign up for virus-free and spam-free e-mail with Nexus Technology Group
PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Habeas Porn
Most people have stopped giving Habeas much negative weight, based on the
massive abuse of their mark by a spam gang hosting their pharmacy websites
in China. Habeas was very slow to populate their HIL database of known
abusers to counteract
]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Habeas Porn
H. Maybe I shouldn't have HABEAS whitelisted then. Also, it's still
whitelisted in the Declude JunkMail default GLOBAL.CFG.
Thanks,
Dan Geiser
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Colbeck, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
Today's related counts:
My own Habeas filter: 17
HIL: 258
Number of my Habeas filters tripped that were in HIL: 1
Number of my Habeas filters tripped on my porn filter: 9
What that means on my server is that HIL is still not coming up to the bar
to stop spammers using zombies to abuse their
At 04:41 PM 2/27/2004, you wrote:
Today's related counts:
My own Habeas filter: 17
HIL: 258
Number of my Habeas filters tripped that were in HIL: 1
Number of my Habeas filters tripped on my porn filter: 9
You know - it's probably crossed a mind or two - but it needs to be said.
Is it now time to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 2:05 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Habeas Porn
At 04:41 PM 2/27/2004, you wrote:
Today's related counts:
My own Habeas filter: 17
HIL: 258
Number of my Habeas filters tripped that were in HIL: 1
Number of my Habeas
- Original Message -
From: "Madscientist" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 2:05 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Habeas Porn
At 04:41 PM 2/27/2004, you wrote:
Today's related counts:
My own Habeas filter: 1
Is there way to block this kind of emails? I am using lite version of
declude..
What you want to do here is not whitelist the spam. To do that, you can
temporarily remove the WHITELIST HABEAS line in the
\IMail\Declude\global.cfg file until Habeas sues the spammers. :)
By removing the
Hi,
May be I'm must lucky - but yesterday I had:
HABEAS..50.04%
HIL...1961.57%
5 messages with HABEAS headers - but 195 mails that failed HABEAS' infringer
list.
Best Regards
Andy
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
Recently a big old spammer forged or got access to the Habeas headers. Much
spam got through my system because I had the default setting to whitelist
Habeas. I'd use this with caution until they find this guy and hopefully
sue the crap out of him or hang him by his toenails.
-Original
I counter-balance Habeas with their own hil blacklist.
Right now - 95% of all habeas mail is actually coming from a blacklisted
server.
Best Regards
Andy Schmidt
HM Systems Software, Inc.
600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846
Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20
I thought Scott had it configured that if the Habeas headers were found, it
was considered a fail and therefore the negative weight should be the
first weight parameter, not the second.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
I thought Scott had it configured that if the Habeas headers were found, it
was considered a fail ...
Correct.
... and therefore the negative weight should be the
first weight parameter, not the second.
Correct. So:
HABEAS habeas x x -10 0
would probably be the best way to set it up.
Okay, so it was 16 minutes and I spelled INFRINGER wrong. So what... ;-)
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Bill Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 5:18 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Habeas Infringers ip4r test
I decided to test the Habeas
:))
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Landry
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 5:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Habeas
Anybody using it to send mail? Anybody seeing mail with Habeas headers?
I'm not using it, but have seen a handful of E-mails using it (typically
from the computer geek types, not the average end user).
I'm considering subscribing for our outgoing e-mail newsletter, but before
I do, want to
:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Habeas
Anybody using it to send mail? Anybody seeing mail with Habeas
headers?
I'm not using it, but have seen a handful of E-mails using it (typically
from the computer geek types, not the average end user).
I'm considering
: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 11:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Habeas
Sorry, didn't make myself clear.
Whitelisting Habeas works from a programmatic viewpoint - I use it here.
But I've never noticed any mail bearing Habeas Headers, so I'm wondering
if it works from a marketing
Report them.
http://www.habeas.com/faq/index.htm#5.1
http://www.habeas.com/report/
What is the originating IP address?
http://www.habeas.com/services/infringers.htm
John Tolmachoff MCSE, CSSA
IT Manager, Network Engineer
RelianceSoft, Inc.
Fullerton, CA 92835
www.reliancesoft.com
Several porn spammers are also using them. They claim that they are using
verified opt-in lists, however we have seen several reports from customers
that claim they never opted-in for any adult oriented material, however may
have for other things. They are apparently buying their opt-in lists
This should not be an issue since Habeas headers implies they are
adhereing to the strict rules put forth by Habeas, and had to pay for
the right to use them, if they are in violation, report them to Habeas,
who will take legal action against topica.com for violating the
agreement.
Thanks,
Chuck
on 3/25/03 10:14 AM, John Tolmachoff wrote:
What is the originating IP address?
66.180.244.23
66.180.244.25
66.180.244.28
and I assume others.
Greg
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing
Hi Jeff,
I just tried using the default stated in the
http://www.declude.com/Release/162/GLOBAL.CFG and I get this message.
11/22/2002 16:23:02 Invalid WHITELIST type: HABEAS
I just tried it last night without success, and your email reminded me reply
to this post...
Sincerely,
Eddie :)
Does the HABEAS test as implemented in Declude JunkMail query the Habeas
Infringers List?
No -- HIL is a standard ip4r test, and can be added to any version of
Declude, by adding a line such as:
HIL ip4r hil.habeas.com 127.0.0.2 5 0
to your global.cfg file.
Note that there are
The concept is interesting. It is sort of like the Trusted Sender of TRUESTe.
In reviewing the site:
http://www.habeas.com/support/install.htm#headershttp://www.habeas.com/support/install.htm#headers
it seems like they don't have IMail discussed. Scott since you started
this topic, do you
36 matches
Mail list logo
