I have once again been spammed by a habeas-accredited sender. This time it's also in senderbase, and thus got a whopping -8.6 from those two combined. Perhaps one rule should be dropped - two rules controlled by the same organization having additive scores doesn't seem right.
spample and SA output at http://www.lexort.com/spam/birthday.txt http://www.lexort.com/spam/birthday.out I looked at http://www.senderscorecertified.com and was unable to find a complaint address. On December 6, I got another spam that was habeas-accredited and complained To: safel...@returnpath.net, complai...@habeas.com See the "rewards" msg at http://www.lexort.com/spam/. This is pretty egregious spam, with the usual fraudulent claim that I signed up. I have heard nothing back and the sender is still accredited, but now as SOI rather than COI. In https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5902 I asked why HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI still got a negative score, and after posting in public did get a response from habeas. But my experience has been that non-public complaints are ignored. I realize that HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI has or had a reasonable ruleqa value. But, I wonder if SA should apply higher standards than that, and not give negative scores to databases that don't behave reasonably.
pgpnbwBIu5Ymv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
