On 28 Aug 2002, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Dan Kohn <dan@dankohn.com> writes:
>
> > 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 have to agree here.  If Habeas is going to die just because SA does not
support it, that's a serious problem with the business model; but that is
nobody's problem but Habeas's.
A possible solution is for Habeas's business model to include some kind of
incentive for users of SA to give it the benefit of the doubt.  I have yet
to think of an incentive that fits the bill ...
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Justin Mason wrote:
> I don't see a problem supporting it in SpamAssassin -- but I see Dan's
> points.
>
>   - high score: as far as I can see, that's because SpamAssassin is
>     assigning such high scores to legit newsletters these days, and the
>     Habeas mark has to bring it down below that. :(   IMO we have to fix
>     the high-scorers anyway -- no spam ever *needs* to score over 5 in our
>     scoring system, 5 == tagged anyway.
This is off the topic of the rest of this discussion, but amavisd (in all
its incarnations) and MIMEDefang and several other MTA plugins all reject
at SMTP time messages that scores higher than some threshold (often 10).
If some new release were to start scoring all spam no higher than 5.1,
there'd better be _zero_ FPs, because all those filters would drop their
thresholds to 5.
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Michael Moncur wrote:
> But I agree that there needs to be more focus on eliminating rules that
> frequently hit on newsletters. If any newsletters actually use the Habeas
> mark, that will be one way to help.
Newsletters won't use the mark.  Habeas is priced way too high -- a factor
of at least 20 over what the market will bear, IMO -- on a per-message
basis for most typical mailing lists (Lockergnome, say) to afford it.
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Harold Hallikainen wrote:
> Habeus has come up with a very clever way to use existing law to battle
> spam. It seems that at some point they could drop the licensing fee to
> $1 or less and make all their income off suing the spammers for
> copyright infringement.
Sorry, that just can't work.
If the Habeas mark actually becomes both widespread enough in non-spam,
and effectively-enforced enough to be absent from spam, such that, e.g.,
SA could assign a positive score to messages that do NOT have it, then
spammers are out of business and Habeas has no one to sue.  There's nobody
left to charge except the people who want (or are forced against their
will because their mail won't get through otherwise) to use the mark.
Conversely, if there are enough spammers forging the mark for Habeas to
make all its income suing them, then the mark is useless for the purpose
for which it was designed.
Either way it seems to me that, after maybe a couple of lawsuits against
real spammers and a lot of cease-and-desist letters to clueless Mom&Pops,
then either (a) they're out of business, (b) they have to sell the rights
to use the mark to increasingly questionable senders, or (c) they've both
created and monopolized a market for "internet postage stamps" that
everybody has to pay them for.
The latter would be quite a coup if they [*] could pull it off -- they do
absolutely nothing useful, unless you consider threatening people with
lawsuits useful, yet still collect a fee either directly or indirectly
from everyone on the internet -- effectively we'll be paying them for the
privilege of policing their trademark for them.  I don't believe they'll
ever get that far, but I don't particularly want to help them make it.
[*] And I use the term "they" loosely, because the whole company could
consist of one lawyer if it really got to that point.
-------------------------------------------------------
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