> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Greg Troxel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > After seeing similar spam from "accredited" senders, we disabled any > score from the habeas rules long ago and have yet to notice any > increase in FP (we have ~5000 fairly sensitive users who definitely > let us know when things don't work as they want them to). I've know > of other sites that have disabled the habeas rules/score as well with > similar results. IMHO, they are not worth scoring on since they > obviously do accredit sites that send UCE. Does anyone see any > benefit from using habeus? Does it outweigh the spam that gets > through because of them? >
Considering that only spammers (er... 'email marketing companies') pay for habeas, we have set a POSITIVE score for habeas accredited spam. We track any FP right up front, track any rule in a fp (releases from amavisd-new managed quarantine), we use sa-learn.pl on shared imap folders, and let users drag 'not spam' and 'whitelist user' to a shared folder (and keep track of all fp rules), so far, three years, no user has dragged a habeas certified email into the false positive folders. (on the other hand, lots of fps last month on failed dkim messages. New messages from gmail not even being signed.. I wonder if gmail knows something broke lately in dkim). -- Michael Scheidell, CTO >|SECNAP Network Security Winner 2008 Network Products Guide Hot Companies FreeBSD SpamAssassin Ports maintainer _________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap(r). For Information please see http://www.spammertrap.com _________________________________________________________________________
