In the last 24 hours or so, I, personally, have gotten at least five messages which were forged spam habeas marked.
The habeas score probably let these get through. (I have no idea exactly how many caught spams also had habeas headers - I'm just including the ones I saw.) Habeas may not be a scumbag corp, but IMHO, at the current time, the warrant mark is a lost cause and is much more likely *for me* to indicate spam rather than something I want to see. I expect for 99.5% of the population I support, the same is true. Thus, a positive score for Habeas wouldn't be out of line. In short, I understand the rant a bit, but disagree on the conclusions entirely. Cheers, Greg ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Apthorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "SATalk list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 9:06 AM 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.)
