> "AM" == Alan Munday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AM> If the mailer is a legitimate habeas user then surely they won't be sending
AM> mail that would rate as spam anyway?
AM> So if the habeas test scores 0 it should make no difference.
AM> Just a thought.
If all the world used SpamAssassin
--On Tuesday, January 13, 2004 1:26 PM -0700 Nels Lindquist
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you encounter one shady business with a forged BBB certificate on
the wall, does that mean you'll never trust the BBB again?
The BBB-seal-forger doesn't lie and cheat his way onto my premises in order
to ma
ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 9:29 AM
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: Re: [WL] Re: [SAtalk] OT: forged habeus mark
|
| On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, David A. Carter wrote:
| > Habeas watermarking *may* fail if repeatedly attacked by
| the spammers,
| > which would be
On 13 Jan 2004 at 18:07, Alan Munday wrote:
> If the mailer is a legitimate habeas user then surely they won't be sending
> mail that would rate as spam anyway?
>
> So if the habeas test scores 0 it should make no difference.
Point the first: There are many, many other filtering products in
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Charles Gregory
> Sent: 13 January 2004 15:29
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [WL] Re: [SAtalk] OT: forged habeus mark
>
>
> What I *would* suggest, to
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, David A. Carter wrote:
> Habeas watermarking *may* fail if repeatedly attacked by the spammers, which
> would be a shame. It will *definitely* fail if enough of us as mail
> administrators freak out and pull habeas checking from our configurations at
> the first sign of danger,
