On 6-Jan-2009, at 08:51, Greg Troxel wrote:
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.
This has been brought up on the list in the past (there was a long
thread on it last February). The best suggestion I saw in that thread
was
score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI -1.0
score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI -0.5
score HABEAS_CHECKED 0
The other suggestion that seemed reasonable was setting all scores to
0. Some people suggested setting the scores to positive numbers.
Based on my own mail, a small positive score for Habeas is reasonable:
score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI 0.5
score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI 1.0
score HABEAS_CHECKED 0
It's about 90% Spam for my own mailspool. It used to be used a lot
more, at least in my mail. A lot of commercial or semi-commercial
mailing-lists that I was on tried it out back around 2003-2005, iirc.
Since then, all have stopped using it. The last one to remove them was
the TidBITS mailing list which dropped them on 1-Jan-2007. Certainly
having the very low scores (are they still defaulting to -4.5 and
-8.0?) seems like a spectacularly bad idea.
If you want the real history of Habeas in a nutshell, the company went
to hell when Anne Mitchell left (the same Anne Mitchell who was part
of MAPS back in the day). She's now at the Institute for Spam and
Internet Public Policy <http://www.isipp.com/about.php>. What habeas
became after she left was something quite different from what it had
been under her stewardship.
--
I hear hurricanes a-blowing, I know the end is coming
soon. I fear rivers over-flowing. I hear the voice
of rage and ruin.
