Re: [Evolution-hackers] SA rules adjustment

[guenther <guenther rudersport de>]

> > 1) Setting the HABEAS_SWE rule to 0 effectively will disable this test.
> > As a result, no valid Habes marked mails will get added HAM points, but
> > the Spammers don't profit by it either.
> 
> I think we may temporarily zero it. The Habeas watermarking method
> doesn't look very strong to me ;-)

Yeah, this is Habeas' [1] duty. It actually is not hard to be faked.
Now, as this headers *are* faked in the wild, we will see if this model
will work out.

Habeas will try to sue the SPAMmers, cause they are infringing their
Copyright (!), violating the DMCA.


[1]  Someone please note, how you native Americans pronounce it...


> > 2) Excluding the Habeas headers from Bayes would be good too. Otherwise,
> > getting more SPAM as HAM with this faked headers will poison the Bayes
> > database and HAM will get bad Bayes scores.
> 
> I am not sure about this. It may cause trouble in case the bayes db is
> already poisoned. Otherwise it should work OK.

I'm not sure, if I understand you.

Excluding this headers means, their existence and the values will
neither be a sign for SPAM nor HAM. Which this headers definitely are
ATM, being abused by SPAMmers.

If an *existing* Bayes database already is poisoned, this is *not* our
fault. And we will take precaution to not poison the database any more.
If we simply ignore this headers, their sole existence won't have any
effect at all.

The only negative effect I can see would be, if the Bayes database *is*
already poisoned. But:
1) *We* did not poison the database.
2) Ignoring these headers will be an antidote, as this headers will be
doomed to be ineffective.
3) This poison only should have any effect, if the very same tokens are
part of the *body*.


Still voting for the whole habeas.cf to be distributed by Ximian...

...guenther


-- 
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0  ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}