From: "Jeff Mincy" <j...@delphioutpost.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/November/24 14:23
From: LuKreme <krem...@kreme.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:08:11 -0700
On Nov 23, 2009, at 7:39, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk>
wrote:
> Yes, why to differ between non-abusing and abusing marketers...
We've been through this before. On my mail, habeas is a very strong
indicator of spam. It does not appear in legitimate mail.
I find it a little hard to believe that your spam is so much different
from
my spam. On my mail, not one single spam message (out of 228k total) hit
HABEAS for all of 2009. The few messages (480 out of 11k) that hit HABEAS
were all ham, either professional organizations/newsletters, transactions
from places like Vanguard or retail stores that I have a relationship
with.
I don't know who these legitimate marketers are, but I don't feel I'm
missing anything.
You WILL 'block' legitimate mail. However, It's your email, so you
can do anything you want. If you think HABEAS is so bad just set the
HABEAS scores to zero and save the network bandwidth.
-jeff
I have a compulsion to be as honest as I can. So I'll note that the
MODERN HABEAS seems to be a DNS test rather than a chunk of copyrighted
text. Nonetheless, I have been bitten often enough I simply ignore the
HABEAS tests and get on with my email. There are things that come from
"certified" senders in my snail-mail, too. I jettison them to the
shredder. At least I leave the HABEAS marked email with the SA markup
and check the low scoring spam for misplaced ham. (I have some quirky
people sending me email. Some of them manage to get marked as spam.
Eventually I whitelist them. I also have a fun game with some sources
of email. Sometimes they manage to blow 5 and other times they do not.
It's fun to watch as they try to "tune" their emails.)
{^_^}
