On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:18 PM, J.D. Falk
jdfalk-li...@cybernothing.org wrote:
RobertH wrote:
Maia Mailguard is a neat project that uses SA/amavisd to
provide users with a web based quarantine. When a user
indicates that a message is spam, the system can
automatically submit the
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:42 AM, LuKreme krem...@kreme.com wrote:
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
I changed my HABEAS scores
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
2009/3/17 Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk:
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
On 17-Mar-2009, at 03:08, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I still think it's much better to report them to habeas for
spamming...
Why? My time is valuable, and I don't have any interest in being an
unpaid volunteer for a commercial service. It's very simple, I don't
see Habeas headers in
On 17/03/09 5:08 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
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,
On 17/03/09 6:41 AM, LuKreme krem...@kreme.com wrote:
On 17-Mar-2009, at 03:08, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I still think it's much better to report them to habeas for
spamming...
Why? My time is valuable, and I don't have any interest in being an
unpaid volunteer for a commercial
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
Since February 17, we have received less than 20 complaints.
A question if I may, Neil: does returnpath run any spamtraps to see
whether your clients are indeed violating your terms? Having few
complaints is not necessarily a good metric given
On 17/03/09 6:59 AM, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
A question if I may, Neil: does returnpath run any spamtraps to see
whether your clients are indeed violating your terms? Having few
complaints is not necessarily a good metric given the number of people who
will simply curse you and
HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI 0
tflags HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI net
#
score HABEAS_UNCONFIRMED 8.0
tflags HABEAS_UNCONFIRMED net
header HABEAS_UNCONFIRMED
eval:check_rbl('habeas-firsttrusted','sa-accredit.habeas.com.',
'127\.\d+\.\d+\.[6789]\d')
- rh
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 -
Matus
even though it is COI, what i see
RobertH wrote:
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 -
and the reason we use that
From: Neil Schwartzman
snip
Well, to each his own. I have spent a lot of time reporting spam in my
life, (probably too much), in actual fact.
My thinking in reporting spam to DNSBLs (I am or was in the top 10
reporters at Phishtank URIBL, high on the board at Netcraft, and
have an
LuKreme wrote:
It's very simple, I don't
see Habeas headers in legitimate email, and haven't for years. I see it
in spam. I score it up. The score of -8.0 is ridiculous for something
that is so easily forged.
They haven't *used* the headers in years, either. Habeas is an IP-based
RobertH wrote:
there is bound to be some way that those (of us or the SA Team) that want to
participate, can help you and help us at the same time.
some type of automated plugin that needs to be created that reports to us
and returnpath info relevant to stopping the bad eggs yet allowing the
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:18 PM, J.D. Falk
jdfalk-li...@cybernothing.org wrote:
RobertH wrote:
there is bound to be some way that those (of us or the SA Team) that want
to
participate, can help you and help us at the same time.
some type of automated plugin that needs to be created that
,DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE=-0.0001,HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI=-8,
SARE_FRAUD_X3=1.667,SARE_FRAUD_X4=1.667,SARE_FRAUD_X5=1.667,US_DOLLARS_3=0.63
Content analysis details: (7.0 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
-8.0
The wiki now has an email address to report Habeas-accredited spam:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI
pgp8bfg8GvsBB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 19:46 -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
The wiki now has an email address to report Habeas-accredited spam:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI
Thanks Greg, I've reported it to them
--
KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
signature.asc
Description
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
I changed my HABEAS scores ages ago:
score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI -1.0
score
We are working with the sender and providing recommendations to secure
and monitor account users (such as using captcha to prevent bots from
registering and setting rate limits on the user level). Currently there
is no historical data on abuse from this particular user, they have
flagged this
Hi Eloise,
At 02:07 02-06-2008, Eloise Carlton wrote:
We are working with the sender and providing recommendations to secure
and monitor account users (such as using captcha to prevent bots from
registering and setting rate limits on the user level). Currently there
is no historical data on
are coming with
HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI
Where do I report these
try searching the habeas website...
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek
PROTECTED]
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 02.05.08 19:11, ram wrote:
I am getting spams on my spamtraps which are coming with
HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI
Where do I report these
try searching the habeas website...
--
Matus UHLAR
ram wrote:
Yes but the invite option may be abused. Like yahoo calendar invites are
abused to send spam
Mailing-Lists also can be abused (try to subscribe with a forged address).
the question is
- can the abuser put his text or url inside the message? If so, the site
should run the text
I am getting spams on my spamtraps which are coming with
HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI
Where do I report these
---
X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from omxp01.mx.ning.com (omxp01.mx.ning.com [208.82.16.109])
by
mx1.netcore.co.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B901DE4AF
On 02.05.08 19:11, ram wrote:
I am getting spams on my spamtraps which are coming with
HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI
Where do I report these
try searching the habeas website...
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising
Hi,
ram wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 08:49 +, Anthony Peacock wrote:
Hi,
I have just received a number of spam emails which got through the
filtering system because they hit the HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI rule, which
give them -8. They all came to role based addresses that are never used
On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 08:21 +, Anthony Peacock wrote:
For anyone interested here is the full email (well one of them)...
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/habeas-misfire.eml
Looks to me as though someone has found a way to abuse ning.com's
platform/systems. I suspect they'd be very
On 26.02.08 11:18, Igor Chudov wrote:
If I recall correctly...
This Habeas is some sort of a braindead business idea to insert an
unauthenticated header in bodies of legitimate emails coming from
their customers, to assure spam filters that the email is legitimate.
afaiuc, Habeas is sort
On 2/27/2008 10:16 AM, Derek Harding wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 08:21 +, Anthony Peacock wrote:
For anyone interested here is the full email (well one of them)...
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/habeas-misfire.eml
Looks to me as though someone has found a way to abuse ning.com's
Derek Harding writes:
On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 08:21 +, Anthony Peacock wrote:
For anyone interested here is the full email (well one of them)...
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/habeas-misfire.eml
Looks to me as though someone has found a way to abuse ning.com's
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/habeas-misfire.eml
disable DomainKey plugin and add DKIM plugin will help on that msg
and search on DKIM mta scores for not being sent from a DKIM signer
Hi Benny,
Benny Pedersen wrote:
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/habeas-misfire.eml
disable DomainKey plugin and add DKIM plugin will help on that msg
and search on DKIM mta scores for not being sent from a DKIM signer
I will have a look at this.
But I have already made sufficient
Hi,
I have just received a number of spam emails which got through the
filtering system because they hit the HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI rule, which
give them -8. They all came to role based addresses that are never used
to outgoing emails and would certainly never be subscribed to opt in
email
On Tue, February 26, 2008 09:49, Anthony Peacock wrote:
Does anyone know anything about this. At this stage I am planning on
changing the score for all HABEAS_ACCREDITED_??? rules to 0, to make
them neutral to the score.
score 0 disables the test
Anthony Peacock wrote:
I have had a look around the http://www.habeas.com/ website and can't
really see how to check the company in question, or make a complaint.
There is a form for asking them to ask the company to remove these
addresses from their mailing list, but I don't want to have to
/at/ habeas.com.
'HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI' is supposed to require confirmed opt-in. They
should LART these senders with a big stick.
--j.
forward it to complaints /at/ habeas.com.
'HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI' is supposed to require confirmed opt-in. They
should LART these senders with a big stick.
I would personally welcome all these certifier rules being disabled by
default.
There's performance and filtering reasons to request
that this was just another
mechanism to implement unsubscribing, and not a proper complaint procedure.
I will actually report the emails that I have got. But I think I am
going to disable all the HABEAS rules anyway.
'HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI' is supposed to require confirmed opt-in. They
should LART
From: Anthony Peacock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:49:11 +
To: SpamAssassin Users users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI
Hi,
I have just received a number of spam emails which got through the
filtering system because they hit
Jason Haar wrote:
Anthony Peacock wrote:
I have had a look around the http://www.habeas.com/ website and can't
really see how to check the company in question, or make a complaint.
There is a form for asking them to ask the company to remove these
addresses from their mailing list, but I
Hi,
Following up to myself...
Anthony Peacock wrote:
Hi Justin,
Justin Mason wrote:
Jason Haar writes:
Anthony Peacock wrote:
I have had a look around the http://www.habeas.com/ website and
can't really see how to check the company in question, or make a
complaint. There is a form for
If I recall correctly...
This Habeas is some sort of a braindead business idea to insert an
unauthenticated header in bodies of legitimate emails coming from
their customers, to assure spam filters that the email is legitimate.
Kind of like SPF, but implemented by third graders with multiple
I strongly recommend to block Habeas entirely.
They are a yet another garbage email company.
i
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 03:10:54PM +, Anthony Peacock wrote:
Hi,
Following up to myself...
Anthony Peacock wrote:
Hi Justin,
Justin Mason wrote:
Jason Haar writes:
Anthony Peacock wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Igor Chudov wrote:
If I recall correctly...
This Habeas is some sort of a braindead business idea to insert an
unauthenticated header in bodies of legitimate emails coming from
their customers, to assure spam filters that the email is legitimate.
Kind of like SPF, but
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:18:32AM -0600, Igor Chudov wrote:
This Habeas is some sort of a braindead business idea to insert an
unauthenticated header in bodies of legitimate emails coming from
their customers, to assure spam filters that the email is legitimate.
The original Habeas SWE was a
Igor Chudov wrote:
If I recall correctly...
This Habeas is some sort of a braindead business idea to insert an
unauthenticated header in bodies of legitimate emails coming from
their customers, to assure spam filters that the email is legitimate.
Not anymore. They've long since switched to
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 08:49 +, Anthony Peacock wrote:
Hi,
I have just received a number of spam emails which got through the
filtering system because they hit the HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI rule, which
give them -8. They all came to role based addresses that are never used
to outgoing
49 matches
Mail list logo
