From: "Mike Cardwell" <spamassassin-us...@lists.grepular.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 2009/December/16 07:33
On 16/12/2009 14:23, LuKreme wrote:
uses. The only thing that really matters is how effective they are. If
a blacklist blocks spammers without blocking too many legitimate mails,
use it. If a whitelist allows legitimate mail without sending through
too many spams, use it. Even lists that have a fair number of false
hits are useful in SA -- just with lower scores.
The trouble with this is how often are these rules being re-examined and
re-evaluated?
Not that often. HABEAS has been through three iterations since those
rules were set at −4 and −8.
What is enabled by default should be the safest possible settings.
Relying on a third party that is in the spam business to make money
doesn't seem very prudent to me, especially when it might be 5 years
before the scores in the default config are evaluated again. And that
doesn't even take into account the glacial speed at which most people
upgrade their systems. We still see questions here for SA 3.1 and
earlier.
(Whatever you think of HABEAS they ARE in the SPAM business and they are
in it to make money).
For what it's worth, I just ran sa-stats.pl against my last ten days of
logs. The only mention of habeas was:
10 HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI 367 1.45 0.00 17.36
So it hit on 17.36% of my Ham, and 0% of my Spam.
Verified ham and spam? User complaints ham and spam? Things that score
as ham and spam? What score does HABEAS have?
Partial data is what you tend to see when somebody is railroading an agenda.
Full data is what helps make rational decisions, be it with spam tools,
government officials, global warming, or anything else. Look for full
disclosure
rather than numbers you have no idea where they came from. Now, I am not
accusing you of anything nefarious. I am simply explaining how my mind
works after many decades of life on this ball of dirt called Earth. That's
why I
would like a little more data about those raw numbers.
{^_^}
