On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Greg Troxel wrote:
In https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5902 I asked why HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI still got a negative score, and after posting in public did get a response from habeas. But my experience has been that non-public complaints are ignored.
My experiences with Habeas have been so poor that I've actually been toying with the idea of assigning fairly large positive scores to the HABEAS_ACCREDITED_* rules. There is a rather stunning overlap with URIBL hits here, and no evidence of a useful effect on legitimate mail.
The last complaint filed with Habeas was answered with something like "this customer appears to be following their business model", which was namely that they "contact people who have posted on certain web sites". I wonder if they're willing to accredit everyone with that particular business model...
I realize that HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI has or had a reasonable ruleqa value. But, I wonder if SA should apply higher standards than that, and not give negative scores to databases that don't behave reasonably.
HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI still earns a -4.3 in the default scores for 3.2.5. I'd love to know why this is still the case.
-Rob
