106 lines
5.2 KiB
Plaintext
106 lines
5.2 KiB
Plaintext
From spamassassin-talk-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Thu Aug 29 11:08:39 2002
|
|
Return-Path: <spamassassin-talk-admin@example.sourceforge.net>
|
|
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.netnoteinc.com
|
|
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
|
|
by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2776747C75
|
|
for <jm@localhost>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 06:06:16 -0400 (EDT)
|
|
Received: from phobos [127.0.0.1]
|
|
by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
|
|
for jm@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:06:16 +0100 (IST)
|
|
Received: from usw-sf-list2.sourceforge.net (usw-sf-fw2.sourceforge.net
|
|
[216.136.171.252]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
|
|
g7T5WqZ32177 for <jm-sa@jmason.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 06:32:52 +0100
|
|
Received: from usw-sf-list1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.13]
|
|
helo=usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net) by usw-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with
|
|
esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17kHta-0006lU-00; Wed,
|
|
28 Aug 2002 22:31:06 -0700
|
|
Received: from adsl-216-103-211-240.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
|
|
([216.103.211.240] helo=proton.pathname.com) by
|
|
usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id
|
|
17kHtS-0005oz-00 for <spamassassin-talk@lists.sourceforge.net>;
|
|
Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:30:58 -0700
|
|
Received: from quinlan by proton.pathname.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1
|
|
(Debian)) id 17kHtK-00013z-00; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:30:50 -0700
|
|
To: "Dan Kohn" <dan@dankohn.com>
|
|
Cc: <spamassassin-talk@example.sourceforge.net>
|
|
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] O.T. Habeus -- Why?
|
|
References: <A23DE7A325D23B49A76B54080E0BCB9E2924A9@kabul.ad.skymv.com>
|
|
From: Daniel Quinlan <quinlan@pathname.com>
|
|
In-Reply-To: "Dan Kohn"'s message of "Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:09:49 -0700"
|
|
Message-Id: <yf2k7majkol.fsf@proton.pathname.com>
|
|
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
|
|
Sender: spamassassin-talk-admin@example.sourceforge.net
|
|
Errors-To: spamassassin-talk-admin@example.sourceforge.net
|
|
X-Beenthere: spamassassin-talk@example.sourceforge.net
|
|
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9-sf.net
|
|
Precedence: bulk
|
|
List-Help: <mailto:spamassassin-talk-request@example.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
|
|
List-Post: <mailto:spamassassin-talk@example.sourceforge.net>
|
|
List-Subscribe: <https://example.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk>,
|
|
<mailto:spamassassin-talk-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
|
|
List-Id: Talk about SpamAssassin <spamassassin-talk.example.sourceforge.net>
|
|
List-Unsubscribe: <https://example.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk>,
|
|
<mailto:spamassassin-talk-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
|
|
List-Archive: <http://www.geocrawler.com/redir-sf.php3?list=spamassassin-talk>
|
|
X-Original-Date: 28 Aug 2002 22:30:50 -0700
|
|
Date: 28 Aug 2002 22:30:50 -0700
|
|
|
|
Dan Kohn <dan@dankohn.com> writes:
|
|
|
|
> Guys, the Habeas Infringers List (HIL) exists explicitly to deal with
|
|
> spammers while we're getting judgments against them and especially in
|
|
> other countries, where those judgments are harder to get.
|
|
|
|
My concern doesn't stem from failing to understand how your business is
|
|
intended to work. My concern is the lack of empirical evidence that it
|
|
will reduce the amount of uncaught spam.
|
|
|
|
> Please note that nobody has ever had an incentive before to go after
|
|
> regular spammers. Yes, some attorneys general have prosecuted blatant
|
|
> pyramid schemes, and ISPs have won some theft of service suits, but
|
|
> the vast majority of spammers go forward with out any legal hassles.
|
|
> So, I can't understand how Daniel can assert that you can't track
|
|
> spammers down when it's never really been tried.
|
|
|
|
Please don't misquote me. I did not assert that you "can't track
|
|
spammers". Here is what I said:
|
|
|
|
| It will be difficult to find, prosecute, and win money from someone in
|
|
| various non-friendly countries where spam originates (China is a good
|
|
| example) even if they do officially "respect" copyright law.
|
|
|
|
I understand the incentive that you have to pursue spammers, but that
|
|
does not directly translate to less spam being sent to my inbox. It is
|
|
an indirect effect and the magnitude of the effect may not be sufficient
|
|
to counteract the ease with which a -20 score on the mark allows spam to
|
|
avoid being tagged as spam.
|
|
|
|
> Daniel, it's easy enough for you to change the Habeas scores yourself
|
|
> on your installation. If Habeas fails to live up to its promise to
|
|
> only license the warrant mark to non-spammers and to place all
|
|
> violators on the HIL, then I have no doubt that Justin and Craig will
|
|
> quickly remove us from the next release. But, you're trying to kill
|
|
> Habeas before it has a chance to show any promise.
|
|
|
|
I think I've worked on SA enough to understand that I can localize a
|
|
score. I'm just not comfortable with using SpamAssassin as a vehicle
|
|
for drumming up your business at the expense of our user base.
|
|
|
|
I think it would make more sense to start Habeas with a less aggressive
|
|
score (one which will not give spammers a quick path into everyone's
|
|
inbox) and after we've seen evidence that the system works, then we can
|
|
increase the magnitude of the score.
|
|
|
|
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------
|
|
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
|
|
Welcome to geek heaven.
|
|
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
|
|
_______________________________________________
|
|
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
|
|
Spamassassin-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
|
|
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
|
|
|