On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 19:59:35 +0100 Dimitrios <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:10:02 -0700 "Des Cahill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Use of this patch, or the installation of SA 3.0.x will prevent spammers > > from forging Habeas mark, yet still allow delivery of legitimate mail. > > To tell the truth, i'm a little reluctant towards commercial sevices > like the ones you offer. It's not really aimed at end-users... > ...In addition, appart > from people in this mailing list, its not a widely accepted system, > thus we are not missing anything by not using it. Then the appropriate answer is to set the score to 0 and get on with life -or- apply the patches to SA and use forged Habeas marks as spam-sign. > So why would we want to add extra delays and bandwidth useage, in order > to use the Habeas whitelist? Only you can determine whether the benefits of such checks exceed their costs. Regardless, this is not the forum to discuss Habeas' business model, efficacy, etc. Please check the archives for how this issue has been flogged to death and then some; if you feel it warrants further discussion, please continue off-list. -- Bob
