> Today almost 10 spam per day with HABEAS_SWE are received, I don't > see the point of using a spam authorized mark. > > I would propose the following patch which is volontary agressive, > but there is a real problem with HABEAS tag (probably a 0 mark is > better for HABEAS_SWE) :
At issue here is that many folks are just plain naieve about the position of spammers and the law. Habeas' plan is based upon copyright law and litigation. Litigation costs money -- real money -- and the big spammers have a lot more of that than do Habeas. Too, there's the issue of the criminality of spamming itself. I don't particularly care if some bloke that mugs me does so with a gun, a knife, or his fists -- I've still been mugged; the criminal doesn't care either since the whole choice of weapon is immaterial to the fact that a crime has been committed. > -score HABEAS_SWE -8.0 > +score HABEAS_SWE 16.0 That's silly, and will only penalise those folks who use the Habeas mark with good intentions -- and whom you probably want to communicate with since at least they're _trying_ to do good. Just zero the rule, and base your tests on something else. > score HABEAS_VIOLATOR 16.0 This may be worse than useless. As an aside, have Habeas won even *one* *meaningful* legal victory that had any teeth to it? If so, are they willing to openly discuss the details of same (a "sealed judgement" is no judgement at all)? I love this bit from Habeas' website: "Also, Habeas has begun systematically adding the IP addresses of the hundreds of compromised PCs sending this spam to the Habeas Infringers List (HIL)." Two paragraphs before the above, they remark: "It is interesting that this spam attack appears to be originating from a distributed set of zombie cable/DSL modems that someone likely took over in a past virus attack. It just illustrates the lengths the spammers will go to, including taking on Habeas' proven legal capabilities, to distribute their spam." I think they're doing more damage than good. Blindly adding some poor bloke's machine into a black-hole database because said bloke got caught with his pants down is ethically reprehensible. What happens if that chap's legitimate e-mails asking for help with his machine go unanswered because he's in Habeas' RBL? I'll score that rule as zero, too, and let the matter drop. And that, gentlemen, is the great beauty of SpamAssassin -- it's locally configureable. +------------------------------------------------+---------------------+ | Carl Richard Friend (UNIX Sysadmin) | West Boylston | | Minicomputer Collector / Enthusiast | Massachusetts, USA | | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +---------------------+ | http://users.rcn.com/crfriend/museum | ICBM: 42:22N 71:47W | +------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
