At 14:45 05-09-2008, Greg Troxel wrote:
>I don't know that spamassassin pays attention to senderbase; if not this
>probablly won't work. I say this, mostly joking, from my experience
>with habeas. I have gotten spam on multiple occasions from senders that
>are HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI, and complained to habeas - with absolutely
>zero useful response. I filed a bug:
>and soon heard from habeas, who claimed that they revoked the listing of
>that sender.
>I then got more spam from a different habeas-accredited spammer, and
>complained privately to, and heard nothing back.
>So the only rational conclusion seems to be that habeas accreditation is
>bogus, and they only respond to public pressure. Perhaps that's not
>true and I've been unlucky, but that's how it feels from my end.

The rule in the subject line is described as "Habeas Accredited
Opt-In or Better". That is not double Opt-In. If Habeas is not
responding to complaints sent to, then it may
be better to set the current score for that test from -4.3 to 0.

>(If anyone thinks streamsend are other than spammers, please email me
>privately and let me know)

1. Streamsend requires their users to abide with CAN-SPAM
2. An unsubscribe link is required but double opt-in is not.
3. The domain information in Whois is hidden by a privacy service.

Would you whitelist such a domain?