No, hits=-1000.5 required=5.0
	tests=AWL,T_NONSENSE_FROM_40_50
	version=2.50-cvs

> 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.
You're not dense. I'm going to zero the habeas scores on my copy of
SpamAssassin. I think they were added to SA quite prematurely. To me it's
simple:
1. People who send me legitimate email have absolutely no motivation to use
Habeas, at least until it gets lots more press, and even then only
bulk-mailing companies like Amazon or eBay are going to bother, and I
already whitelist them. Individuals won't bother.
2. Spammers have lots of motivation to forge the Habeas headers, and a good
percentage of them are completely out of the legal reach of Habeas.
I think it should be subjected to the same testing and scrutiny as any other
potential new rule. When I test against my corpus here's what I get:
OVERALL     SPAM  NONSPAM     S/O   SCORE  NAME
13851     8919     4932    0.64    0.00  (all messages)
0        0        0    0.00   -1.00  HABEAS_SWE
The score of -1.0 is pretty harmless right now, but it still looks like a
useless rule so far.
--
Michael Moncur  mgm at starlingtech.com  http://www.starlingtech.com/
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." --Napoleon
-------------------------------------------------------
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

from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65E95440F3
	for <jm@localhost>; Thu,  1 Aug 2002 14:45:02 -0400 (EDT)
from phobos [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 01 Aug 2002 19:45:02 +0100 (IST)
from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 5205B2940EF; Thu,  1 Aug 2002 11:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
from t2.serverbox.net (64-71-187-101.ip.serverbox.net
    [64.71.187.101]) by xent.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C00732940CD for
    <fork@xent.com>; Thu,  1 Aug 2002 11:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
(qmail 12786 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2002 18:40:24 -0000
from unknown (HELO techdirt.techdirt.com) (12.236.16.241) by
    t2.serverbox.net with SMTP; 1 Aug 2002 18:40:24 -0000
From fork-admin@xent.com  Thu Aug  1 19:45:03 2002