1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
|
From spamassassin-talk-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Thu Aug 29 11:06:43 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 8FA0344167
for <jm@localhost>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 06:05:15 -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 11:05:15 +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
g7SMFiZ12380 for <jm-sa@jmason.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:15:44 +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 17kB4e-0001Lv-00; Wed,
28 Aug 2002 15:14:04 -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
17kB4L-0006hu-00 for <spamassassin-talk@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:13:45 -0700
Received: from quinlan by proton.pathname.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1
(Debian)) id 17kB4H-000848-00; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:13:41 -0700
To: Robin Lynn Frank <rlfrank-dated-1030992510.fc97b8@paradigm-omega.com>
Cc: spamassassin-talk@example.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] O.T. Habeus -- Why?
References: <1030560510.17408.TMDA@omega.paradigm-omega.net>
From: Daniel Quinlan <quinlan@pathname.com>
In-Reply-To: Robin Lynn Frank's message of "Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:48:12 -0700"
Message-Id: <yf2sn0yk4x6.fsf@proton.pathname.com>
Lines: 32
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 15:13:41 -0700
Date: 28 Aug 2002 15:13:41 -0700
X-Pyzor: Reported 0 times.
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-10.6 required=7.0
tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,
QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_03_05,
USER_AGENT_GNUS_XM
version=2.40-cvs
X-Spam-Level:
Robin Lynn Frank <rlfrank@paradigm-omega.com> writes:
> I may be dense, but why would anyone want to utilize Habeus? To me,
> it looks like a potential backdoor to anyone's defenses against spam.
>
> If I were a spammer, I'd simply set up a server, send out my spam with
> the Habeus headers and continue till I was reasonably certain I'd been
> reported. Then I'd simply reconfigure the server and reconnect to a
> different IP. As long as no one can establish my connection to the
> web sites my spam is directing people to, I'm home free.
Here is the bug I opened:
http://www.hughes-family.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=762
RBLs have the same problem, but there is no negative RBL header rule
with a -20 score that can be forged, so the problem is unique to Habeas.
> Since I can set up spamassassin to I don't "lose" any email, what do I
> gain by making it easier for spam to get through??
My primary issue is the magnitude of the negative score and that it was
not determined empirically. I am also concerned that it was added after
the rules freeze, that such a major change was not discussed in advance,
etc.
There's also no evidence that the rule will actually reduce FPs. People
who are smart enough to use the rule are probably capable of writing
email that doesn't look like spam (I'm not counting spam mailing lists
which you need to be exempted from spam filtering).
Dan
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Jabber - The world's fastest growing
real-time communications platform! Don't just IM. Build it in!
http://www.jabber.com/osdn/xim
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
Spamassassin-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
|
