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>
Lines: 47
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
X-Pyzor: Reported 0 times.
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-10.0 required=7.0
	tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,
	      QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_05_08,
	      USER_AGENT_GNUS_XM
	version=2.40-cvs
X-Spam-Level: 

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

