Quoting Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > And many other people, not just these two, had the same sentiments. > Which really saddens me. > > For years I have heard people say we need to do something about spam. > That filtering is only treating the symptom and not the disease. That > we need to fight the source of the spam problem, the spammers > themselves. But now when someone makes an honest attempt to fight the > spammers themselves, everyone thinks it is not fast enough. If they > don't have satisfaction RIGHT NOW then it is not good enough either.
I admit to being one of the short-sighted ones, although in my defense, my reasoning was due to a believed (later, probably unfounded, it turns out) vulerability with how SA handles Habeas, not Habeas itself, which I did say I thought was a good idea provided the follow-through is there to back it up. I find your argument very convincing. I for one am going to make some changes in my implementation, so I can have habeas checking again the way the SA developers intended. I hope others will do the same. 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, rendering the watermark completely useless. This would *really* be a shame....basically letting the spammers win without even putting up a fight. Well argued, I thought, Bob. Regards; DaC ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software. Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms. Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
