Michelle Konzack wrote:
HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI& SOI have nothing to do with Habeas headers in an
email. The two are entirely distinct and (almost certainly) bear no
correlation with each other since I'd be shocked if anyone on either of
those lists included the headers.
If the Enterprise has n
Robert wrote:
the thing is, the SA community and the world at large should not be your
free customer compliance labor force.
Of course not! The SA community isn't part of the formal compliance process
at all; there are automated processes running 24x7, and an human enforcement
team investig
>
>
> obviously you weren't reading this mailing list several years
> ago, when several of the SA committers, myself included, used
> the Habeas headers in their personal mail...
>
> --j.
>
>
justin
what does this mean? e what are you directing us to see and know?
tia
- rh
> If my system detect any HABEAS stuff, I score it with 10.00 and the spam
> is gone. I have moved a very long time (arround 2 years) the messages
> to a seperated folder and had not a singel False-Positive.
>
obviously you weren't reading this mailing list several years ago,
when several of t
Good morning Derek,
Am 2009-07-17 13:12:12, schrieb Derek Harding:
> I don't get why you'd search for spammers including headers that have
> not been in actual use for many years and conflate those results with a
> DNS whitelist that is currently being maintained.
>
> HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI & SO
On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 14:41 -0600, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
>
>
> On 17/07/09 4:03 PM, "Neil Schwartzman"
> wrote:
>
> > Your assertion that we encountered a block and then switched to a new IP
> > netblock is preposterous. We have several ranges and mail streams. You opted
> > in and then opted
On 17/07/09 4:03 PM, "Neil Schwartzman"
wrote:
> Your assertion that we encountered a block and then switched to a new IP
> netblock is preposterous. We have several ranges and mail streams. You opted
> in and then opted out. OK, in what timeframe? Minutes? Hours? The proscribed
> 10-day CANSP
LuKreme wrote:
In my mailspool they are a spam indicator and I
have them scored as such:
score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI 1.0
score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI 1.5
It's very simple, Habeas headers are a fairly strong indicator of spam
in my mail spool. I search all the mail for habeas headers and it
sh
On 17/07/09 3:32 PM, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk"
wrote:
> I have (as usual) a different view. Being told how wonderful they were I
> thought it would be a blast to opt-in, then opt out again. On opting out
> I found I was mailed again by RP. So I blocked the range. They found
> another range and spa
On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 03:25 -0700, twofers wrote:
> Neil Rocks !
>
> Thanks Neil.
>
> Wes
>
> --- On Thu, 7/16/09, Neil Schwartzman
> wrote:
>
>
> From: Neil Schwartzman
> Subject: Re: Opt In Spam
> To: "twofers
Neil
it appears that you and your organization are taking an excellent proactive
stance and work ethic against spam and UCE etc...
and you should be commended for that.
the thing is, the SA community and the world at large should not be your
free customer compliance labor force.
we should be
On 17-Jul-2009, at 06:24, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
On 16/07/09 11:39 AM, "LuKreme" wrote:
* -4.3 HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI RBL: Habeas Accredited Opt-In
or Better
* [66.59.8.161 listed in sa-accredit.habeas.com]
If you search for HABEAS_ACCREDITED you will find that a LOT of
On 16/07/09 11:39 AM, "LuKreme" wrote:
>> * -4.3 HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI RBL: Habeas Accredited Opt-In
>> or Better
>> * [66.59.8.161 listed in sa-accredit.habeas.com]
>
>
> If you search for HABEAS_ACCREDITED you will find that a LOT of admins
> either drop these scores to v
Neil Rocks !
Thanks Neil.
Wes
--- On Thu, 7/16/09, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
From: Neil Schwartzman
Subject: Re: Opt In Spam
To: "twofers" , "Spamassassin"
Date: Thursday, July 16, 2009, 1:29 PM
FOLLOW-UP:
A process was hung on one of the 20 hives serving the whi
FOLLOW-UP:
A process was hung on one of the 20 hives serving the whitelists and
reported this IP as being listed. We've restarted the process and it is
no longer reporting incorrectly.
On 16/07/09 8:05 AM, "Neil Schwartzman" wrote:
Now, I am aware that we recently changed the DNS hives serving
On 16-Jul-2009, at 05:38, twofers wrote:
* -4.3 HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI RBL: Habeas Accredited Opt-In
or Better
* [66.59.8.161 listed in sa-accredit.habeas.com]
If you search for HABEAS_ACCREDITED you will find that a LOT of admins
either drop these scores to very low nu
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 07:55 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Have you reported the abuse to mailto:habeas@abuse.net, as Neil
> Schwartzman from Return Path (operators of Habeas) requested last time?
>
> Just posting to the sa-users list isn't really going to do very much.
Have to agree (it's nice
On 16/07/09 7:38 AM, "twofers" wrote:
> And yet another SPAM from these opt-in guys.
SINGLE opt-in (SOI).
> I believe this group are nothing but covert Spammers abusing a privilage
> afforded them.
Which group? E Z Publishing? They are neither covert, nor spammers. They are
an ESP. As suc
Have you reported the abuse to mailto:habeas@abuse.net, as Neil
Schwartzman from Return Path (operators of Habeas) requested last time?
Just posting to the sa-users list isn't really going to do very much. If
there are pervasive FP problems, it will show up in the mass-checks and
we'll drop th
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 04:38 -0700, twofers wrote:
> 66.59.8.161
TRY:
OrgAbuseEmail: ab...@streamsend.com
And yet another SPAM from these opt-in guys.
I believe this group are nothing but covert Spammers abusing a privilage
afforded them.
I receive these spams at two separate email addresses, both I use exclusively
for my business, there is no way I'd use these addresses as an opt-in for
anythin
21 matches
Mail list logo
