Hear, hear. As much as I agree that HABEAS_SWE should not score a high negative score (if at all) simply because the ease at which it can be copied and included in UCE, the fact that they actively prosecute where possible does enamour me to them as a sysadmin. They are essentially doing exactly the same as the rest of us are forced to do, weather the storm against unassailable odds. In fact, they are for the most part doing more than the rest of us can or choose to by actually getting litigious with these spammers.
Just my 2p/$0.02 Daz > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Apthorpe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 11 March 2004 17:06 > To: SATalk list > Subject: Re: Habeas status? > > > Hi, > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Aleksander Adamowski wrote: > > > Had anyone seen any evidence that Habeas is a legitimate > company? If so, > > please, share with us. > > Yes. > > Search the SPAM-L archives over, say, the last 3-5 years. > (http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/spam-l.html - > subscription to SPAM-L > required.) > > As has been beaten to death on many fora, Habeas is not an anti-spam > company, nor are they spammers. They are an email assurance company; > legitimate mailers (bulk or not) agree to some basic "best > practices" for > sending email and are allowed to use their trademark, often for a fee. > The intent is to signal the recipient that the sender is a responsible > mailer and therefore increase deliverability of mail sent > with the Habeas > mark. This increased deliverability is Habeas' value. > > Those misusing the Habeas mark are in fact sued for copyright > violation, > trademark dilution, etc. - see > http://www.habeas.com/companyPressPR.html#fivesuits > > What you don't see are the number of cease & desist orders sent by > Habeas's staff and other actions that never make it to court. > > There is no way to prevent spammers from forging the Habeas mark, a > priori. Habeas' model relies on the deterence value of > lawsuits; Habeas is > quite willing to sue to protect their intellectual property. IP law is > much more well-developed than spam law; it's easier for > lawyers and judges > to understand and is much easier to successfully prosecute. > > That is the nutshell explanation of Habeas model. I didn't > invent it, I > don't own stock in Habeas, I don't use their mark, and I have > no opinion > of their business model other than it's an interesting application of > trademark and copyright law. If you want to know more, you > can do what I > did and read http://www.habeas.com/ > > ----- Sensitive viewers should tune out now ----- > > > > > > > > > > > I've seen very little Habeas marked spam, hardly any worth mentioning. > What I have seen though, is every ignorant loudmouth dumbass > come out of > the woodwork and trash Habeas in a public forum without doing > a shred of > research into the company, their history, and their business > model. Habeas > is as much a victim as spam recipients are, moreso because they can > actually show how their business has been damaged by misuse > of their IP. > > "Your system, your rules" but IMO anyone who scores > HABEAS_SWE as positive > is a moron and anyone who advocates that stupidity to others > shouldn't be > trusted to operate a mailserver. Set the score to zero and get on with > your lives; I'm tired of hearing about it. > > -- Bob > > (this is not directed at anyone in particular; I'm just frustrated > from hearing the same ignorant bullshit over and over. nobody > should take > this as a personal flame.) >
