2009/3/17 Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk>: >> > On 16-Mar-2009, at 16:40, Chris wrote: >> >> -8.0 HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI RBL: Habeas Accredited Confirmed Opt-In or >> >> Better >> >> [208.82.16.109 listed in > >> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:42 AM, LuKreme <krem...@kreme.com> wrote: >> > I changed my HABEAS scores ages ago: >> > >> > score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI -1.0 >> > score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI -0.5 >> > score HABEAS_CHECKED 0 >> > >> > I'm seriously considering changing them to 1.0, 0.01, and 0, respectively. >> > >> > I seem to ONLY see the headers in spam messages. It's a shame the defaults >> > in SA are still set absurd values. > > On 17.03.09 02:25, Aaron Wolfe wrote: >> Funny, I mentioned to Chris off list that I've been using positive >> scores on all the Habeas accredited spam rules for quite some time >> with good results. Some of their junk is pure spam, more is the type >> of shady commerical junk that technically might not be "spam" but is >> still crap nobody wants, at least nobody here :) >> >> I completely agree that SA should not be giving such high negative >> scores to Habeas. There are a lot of folks who run the defaults, and >> they will get false negatives simply from these rules. > > I still think it's much better to report them to habeas for spamming... > COI means confirmed opt-in. If you did subscribe, it is NOT spam whether > you want it or not. Isn't it good to have someone who will sue spammers? >
The "what is spam/not spam" debate has been done many times before. For me, it's "spam" if my users complain that they are getting "spam", and thats the only "spam" I have to worry about :) Besides the questionable way some marketers use COI (or, the way users don't seem to like getting what they asked for, depending on your viewpoint), the specific problem with the Habeas rules in SA is that the high scores sort of assume Habeas is correct about a message being COI etc, when in fact Habeas is often wrong. The scores are just too trusting. Reporting a message is fine but its not "better" than preventing the spam in the first place, is it? Best to tune the rules down and also report mistakes. -Aaron > -- > Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ > Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. > Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. > The 3 biggets disasters: Hiroshima 45, Tschernobyl 86, Windows 95 >
