Karsten Bräckelmann <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 10:14 -0500, Neil Schwartzman wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 14:22 Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: >> >> > [...] The most important issue that has been mentioned repeatedly is >> > the lack of *any* way to report abuse -- by regular humans. I'm not >> > talking ESP here. > >> Absolutely we are listening, and absolutely there is a place to file >> complaints. >> >> Here's what I wrote to SA Users 14/01/2009: > > Oops, you're right, sorry about that. Forgot that post. However, it > nicely shows the issue at hand. The address for filing complaints for SA > users and other mere mortals are almost impossible to find. No feedback > option on your web-sites, Google didn't pull out that post either. > > A reply to your post points it out quite strikingly. > http://markmail.org/message/jlagd6vzew4ztohw
That's my reply, so I thougth I'd share my experiences to date. On December 6th I sent a complaint (about spam certified as HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI) to [email protected] and [email protected]. I heard nothing, but noticed a drop to SOI. After Neil's post to the list forwarded the complaint on January 14 to [email protected]. I have not heard anything back, so I just sent the complaint again. I just ran the original message through SA again, and it comes up Content preview: My Rewards Center - Please Confirm My Rewards Center Having trouble viewing this email? . [...] Content analysis details: (-2.3 points, 1.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -4.3 HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI RBL: Habeas Accredited Opt-In or Better [64.20.245.66 listed in sa-accredit.habeas.com] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] 2.5 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts -0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list The message has Accreditor: Habeas X-Habeas-Report: Please report use of this mark in spam to <http://www.habeas.com/report/> this goes to a web form, with no abuse email address where one can forward full headers. So perhaps habeas-certified mail should be tagged ACCREDITED_RFC_IGNORANT_ABUSE. So from where I sit there is no functionging complaint process, and the only time I've seen any response at all is from complaining in public. Thus, I support removing the negative score from default configs - even if ruleqa says the rules on average work ok. I have gotten some legit mail from certified senders (shipping confirmations in June/July 2008, now no longer accredited), but very few. It is not reasonable to let for-profit companies sell negative scores when those companies don't do so at a very high level of responsibly - and that does not appear to be the case from the data I have.
pgp4O24CX49UL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
