> > The trouble with this is how often are these rules being re-examined > and re-evaluated? > > Not that often. HABEAS has been through three iterations since those > rules were set at −4 and −8. > > What is enabled by default should be the safest possible settings. > Relying on a third party that is in the spam business to make money > doesn't seem very prudent to me, especially when it might be 5 years > before the scores in the default config are evaluated again. And that > doesn't even take into account the glacial speed at which most people > upgrade their systems. We still see questions here for SA 3.1 and > earlier. > > (Whatever you think of HABEAS they ARE in the SPAM business and they > are in it to make money). >
So far only 1 person on this list has claimed to have been hit by Spam that has been let through by the Habeas rules in SA. No-one else has posted figures (Well, I did a while ago - showing that since June this year, not one piece of Spam that slipped through was assisted by a Habeas rule) but that has dropped by the way side. My question is, what would you do without Spamassassin? Surely its time to quit moaning about a whitelist that very few people have an actual real issue with (ISSUE, as in an existing problem with Spam sailing in thanks to Habeas rules, not the other ISSUE which seems to be "There's a whitelist I don’t approve of here" - well DISABLE it. I agree that the safest settings should be default, but in saying that, it is also on the shoulders of the system's Administrator to ensure that the software he/she installs is configured correctly for their site, and IMHO this would include any default whitelists/blacklists/RBL's etc. Cheers, Mike
