On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Bowie Bailey <bowie_bai...@buc.com> wrote: > LuKreme wrote: >> On 4-Dec-2009, at 01:18, jdow wrote: >> >>> With all the animosity on this issue I decided to give the HABEAS >>> rules a score, a negligible score to be sure, just to see what the >>> state of HABEAS is for me today. >>> >>> In the last four days - nothing either spam or ham. >>> >> >> I tend to see little clusters of HABEAS scores, but they are rare. I might >> see only 10-20 a month. > > After following this thread for a while, I decided to take a look at my > server. So here's one more data point: > > In the last month, I have seen 718 messages that hit one of the HABEAS > rules. Of those, none of them had an overall score higher than 4, and > there were only 12 that would have been scored as spam without the rule. > > Since I don't have access to look at the actual messages and I don't > know what lists my customers may be signed up for, I can't say anything > for sure, but it looks like it's working fine here based on the numbers. > > -- > Bowie >
Here is one more data point: Since October 18th I have seen HABEAS rules listed in Spamassassin score lines 496122 times. One such phishing email this week was successfully delivered to 387 in-boxes. Were it not for the HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI -4.30 other rules would have lead to successfully stopping the message. -- Robert Lopez Unix Systems Administrator Central New Mexico Community College (CNM) 525 Buena Vista SE Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106
