"Carl R. Friend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "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.
I've expressed concerns about the Habeas mark being too easily forged, but at least be accurate in your criticism, especially if you're going to comment on -dev. In 2.6x and later, we only penalize messages that *both* include the Habeas and are on the Habeas Infringers List. > 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. If your machine is trojan-infected and sending many thousands of spams, with or without the Habeas mark, you're going to get so many rejections, bounces, and dropped messages because you'll be listed on DOZENS of legitimate and highly accurate blacklists (and a *large* percentage of your outgoing mail will be filtered as spam) that placing any responsibility for some lost legitimate mail on Habeas is laughable. You are joking... right?? Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan anti-spam (SpamAssassin), Linux, http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ and open source consulting
