Just a follow-up. I've gotten at least 3-4 more in the last few hours.
I'd be glad to forward these on to anyone who would like to review them. --- I'm not advocating a positive score, just saying that I've NEVER, to my knowledge, ever received a SWE marked mail that was legitimate. Perhaps that screws someone who does use it properly, and I understand the frustration. But realize that spam blocking is probabilistic.(sp) I have to guess what's spam and what isn't. The SWE mark, on my mail at least is *much* more likely to be a spam indicator than not. Perhaps sometime in the future, that will be fixed, and the service will get used more widely. Until then, it's more than likely to be used as a huge stone around your neck than a bonus. Life's full of contradictions. Cheers, Greg ================================================================= Sloop Network & Computer Consulting Gregory Sloop, Principal [EMAIL PROTECTED] / www.sloop.net PO Box 16990 Portland OR 97292 v. 503.251.0452 ================================================================ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Gregory Sloop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "SATalk list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 11:45 AM Subject: Re: Habeas status? > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > "Gregory Sloop" writes: > >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. > > Well, we're working on fixes now. Let's just say, it appears we may be > able to use the Habeas forgery as a spamsign in certain circumstances ;) > > Interestingly, I'm getting *none* with forged Habeas hdrs. I'm > increasingly sure that at least some of the top spammers are sharing > list-washing data on known spamtraps, since this is the third spamsign > variant I've received no copies of. > > - --j. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Exmh CVS > > iD8DBQFAUMHXQTcbUG5Y7woRAvO/AKDJ8oTC+ODzUxsFZ5usB9bQ/4Gk0QCfcF7W > BToJQpvdsMc/1TbnglkXX2U= > =OWhe > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
