Hi Greg, Thank you for taking the time to report suspected spam! There is currently an open compliance ticket on this issue with our compliance team. If you haven't already received an update, the sender of the reported message collected the information from a registration for a print publication back in 2003. There are roughly a couple hundred of these accounts which were purged from the sender's database after the investigated started. We have encourage and recommend that they convert to a confirm opt-in methodology of acquiring information.
Further reports of the same type of abuse will result in degradation of the account. Please feel free to send your spam reports to [EMAIL PROTECTED],we will be happy to investigate the report and take appropriate action, if the sender is a Habeas Certified Sender. Kind regards, Eloise Carlton [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:46 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5902 > > > > > > --- Comment #2 from Greg Troxel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-05-07 15:46:21 PST > --- > This is actually the second time recently I have received spam from a > habeas-accredited sender, and habeas did not reply to my complaint. What is > the procedure within spamassassin for evaluating whether habeas's > accreditations continue to be valid? > > eturn-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > X-Spam-Flag: YES > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01) on linuxpal.mit.edu > X-Spam-Level: *** > X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=3.7 required=1.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99, > > DATE_IN_PAST_24_48,HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04,HTML_MESSA\ > GE, > MIME_HTML_ONLY,URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no version=3.2.4 > X-Spam-Report: > * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% > * [score: 1.0000] > * 1.2 DATE_IN_PAST_24_48 Date: is 24 to 48 hours before Received: date > * 0.2 HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04 BODY: HTML has a low ratio of text to image > \ > area > * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message > * 1.0 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts > * -4.3 HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI RBL: Habeas Accredited Opt-In or Better > * [63.149.233.41 listed in sa-accredit.habeas.com] > * 2.0 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist > * [URIs: solutionlists.com] > * 0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list > X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: from Outbound-Two.nuos.com (outbound-two.nuos.com [63.149.233.41]) > by linuxpal.mit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id DCC5116E33 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:04:50 -0400 (EDT) > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > X-EM-Version: 5, 0, 0, 4 > X-EM-Registration: #01E0530610F50E00AC00 > From: "IT Solution Journal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "GREGORY TROXEL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Introducing CDW Days of Savings > Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:14:05 -0700 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII > > and the unanswered complaint: > > From: Greg Troxel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: spam labeled as optin by habeas > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Greg Troxel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:32:12 -0400 > > habeas: > > I received the following spam, and have never had anything to do with > solutionlist. Please explain what's going on - is this new bad behavior > from an accredited sender, or should I file a bug with spamassassin to > remove the rule giving negative points for HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI? > > > -- > Configure bugmail: > https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are the assignee for the bug. >
