Copyrighted Haiku Delivers Spam Through Filters 362
An anonymous reader writes "Remember that antispam company that includes a copyrighted haiku (which I can't quote here due to copyright reasons...) in emails vouching for their nonspaminess and thus bypassing spamfilters?
The idea is that a spammer using said haiku to get through spamfilters can be prosecuted under the more stringent copyright laws instead of the weaker antispam ones.
Well it seems said haiku has lately been figuring in a large spam run trying to pitch the usual medical remedies for various unfortunate ailments.
What do you think? Is it time to start filtering for haikus or will Habeas succeed in thwarting the spam attack?" We mentioned this brilliant anti-spam scheme last April.
screw the copyright - here are the haikus ;) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:screw the copyright - here are the haikus ;) (Score:3, Funny)
Re:screw the copyright - here are the haikus ;) (Score:5, Funny)
Last April we wrote haikus
In response to this
we get one more chance
to write haiku for karma
and we blow it big
I was hoping to
waste my valuable work time
reading horrid verse
Re:screw the copyright - here are the haikus ;) (Score:2, Funny)
Though concealing much effort,
Totally sucked balls.
Habeus have won once already (Score:5, Informative)
Look at the dates fool. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Habeus have won once already (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately I think they might need to make it so that they couple it with a white-list, ie *all* mail with their signature that is *not* on their whitelist is assumed to be spam... Otherwise there will just be too much spam specifically intended to make their service useless, actually harmful to their customers... There'll even be fake spam designed to be hard to track, just to force people to filter out any mail with their delivery and thus forcing them out of business
The latest big spam technique... (Score:5, Interesting)
...is not haiku or any other kind of rearrangment of normal speech. What's pouring right through my filters are messages consisting of just a half-dozen lines of random English words. No sentences, no advertisements, no links, nothing but everyday words.
It's a fairly clever attempt to poison the Bayesian filters. Either I associate these words with spam and risk losing legit email, or I loosen things up and let more real spam slide through. It's frustrating because there's absolutely nothing I can do about it.
[insert long ranting call for vigilante bullet-to-the-head-style action here]
Defended against already (Score:3, Interesting)
It was always going to happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It was always going to happen (Score:2)
Stop the merchants! (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean stop the fraud (Score:4, Insightful)
If law enforcement generally were applied to the sellers of spamvertised products, spam would become far less of a menace. Most spamvertised products are prima faciae illegal (ie, you can't get prescription medications without a prescription), false advertising (a sugar pill won't give you a 12" penis) or are actually just fraud schemes to take money and not deliver a product.
Tracking down email senders is extremely difficult due to header forgery and the use of zombies and other kinds of compromised systems. But just about all spam will take a credit card, which should enable tracking of a financial trail to the sellers. If the Feds would make a RICO case out of it, they could ensnare just about anyone with their finger in the pie, including the spammers, who I'm sure would be fingered by sellers caught in the net.
A few RICO cases that put the squeeze on ISPs, banks handling their financial transactions, spammers, and most importantly, sellers and suppliers of these products would have a pretty significant effect on the whole "scam 'n' spam" business environment. I think there's probably some otherwise legitimate players (ISPs, banks) participating in this field behind the scenes, and some negative exposure in a few of these cases could close the door to a lot of "operators" who need access to the legitimate economy in order to operate.
It's pretty clear that nobody likes spam, but the fact that there have been no high-profile FBI/Treasury/Commerce investigations into some of these things really puzzles me. It may be that the investigations have been done but this angle was deemed not fruitful (doubtful), resources aren't available due to the war on terror (more likely, but not entirely credible), or political pressure has been applied by heavy corporate players to keep their shady business segments viable (somewhat conspiratorial, but believable) -- yet even these theories don't explain the lack of credible, visible efforts on the part of Federal law enforcment to crack down on internet fraud.
Re:It was always going to happen (Score:2, Interesting)
If it was a criminal offense and went to a jury, the jury could very easily sift ham from spam making the conviction rate very high!
I believe a law of this nature would be very effective indeed, for this reason..
Simon
Re:It was always going to happen (Score:2)
So if a spam coming from whatever DSL Windows Zombie gets reported to them, they add that one IP to their blacklist, which is supposed to be only used to filter mail with their haiku mark so it doesn't even affact legitimate mail from that IP, only mail that has their mark faked.
habeas? (Score:3)
Is there a filter for "warranted email" from habeas? It seems to me that any email that needs to be warranted must be spam.
Copyright infringement on the internet? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Copyright infringement on the internet? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Copyright infringement on the internet? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Copyright infringement on the internet? (Score:2, Funny)
Who cares about the haikus? (Score:2)
I've gotten a few (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see this company being semi-successful in taking spammers to court under copyright lawsuits, however like the article says the latest rash is (not suprisingly) zombied broadband hosts, making their chances of finding someone to sue almost nil.
Re:I've gotten a few (Score:4, Insightful)
Not quite, the spams are selling a product at some point, someone is somehow receiving payment for doing the advertising and there is where you get them, whether it be the actual spammer or the company being advertised.
If the spammer is paid per lead there you have them, if they are paid per sale same thing, somehow the money gets to the spammer and there will be a trail to it. Even if they use false aliases they just add fraud to the list, they still have to pick up the money at some point.
The choice for the companies involved should be disclose the information for the spammer you hired or you get fined or criminally charged instead.
The spammers could flood the world with false spam runs targetting innocent companies, hiding their true money making runs, but I think those would stand out as the ones selling Viagra/Penis Patches/etc. as they do now.
We need something and soon, it's a losing battle on the mailservers, I tend to a local dialup ISPs incoming scanning server, they have slowly been losing clients over the years as broadband has taken hold and yet the mail server resource requirements continues to grow at an alarming rate, we turn away 80% of the SMTP connections that come in as it is and still a large percentage of what comes in is still spam. His customers are demanding a solution and the sad thing is the stuff that gets past all the RBL/SpamAssassin checks is the freaking adult stuff most people want rid of the most, especially parents.
Re:I've gotten a few (Score:3, Interesting)
Thought -- Imagine if they end up in jail; considering how many inmates' only contact with the outside world is via the Internet, what would be the inside lifespan of a convicted spammer?
bayesian filters (Score:5, Informative)
Guess what my bayesian filter is going to start thinking of those headers soon... this could prove to be a problem for them if they don't get things fixed ASAP.
Re:bayesian filters (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, Habeas was whitelisted because they promised legal action against spammers infringing on their copyrights... well, the spammers are infringing. Where are those spam-eating lawyers we were promised?
Re:bayesian filters (Score:2)
My bogofilter database seems to consider the Habeas headers to be rather neutral. Of course it'll adapt but as far as I can tell, the Habeas headers are not a good indicator of spamminess of a message.
$ bogoutil -w ~/.bogofilter/wordlist.db head:X-Habeas-SWE-{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} head:{winter,into,spring,brightly,anticipated,like ,Habeas,SWE}
The HIL is effective (Score:2)
HABEAS_HIL (4.0 points) RBL: Sender is on www.habeas.com Habeas Infringer List
The problem is that not enough legitimate mail contains the warranty. More commercial licensors would give Habeas greater resources to track infringers and would also make the Habeas mark a much better indicator of spam.
Fair Use (Score:2)
brightly anticipated
like Habeas SWE (tm)
Either this is not a haiku, or "anticipated" now has six syllables and the product is pronounced "Habees swee".
Re:Fair Use (Score:2)
"Like Ha-Be-Us Swee"
Re:Fair Use (Score:5, Informative)
5 syllables in anticipated, for a total of 7 on the line, making it (assuming you pronounce SWE as Swee and ignore the tm) 5-7-5, with a mention of seasons. Seems valid to me...
Re:Fair Use (Score:2)
Re:Fair Use (Score:2)
Definately not!
My guess is that you are thinking of a Limerick, as limericks are supposed to be humorous. Although there's no requirement that there's a joke in the last line.
Re:Fair Use (Score:5, Funny)
Like autumn harvest,
Writing haikus correctly,
Is very diffic
Re:Fair Use (Score:3, Informative)
Never likely to work (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately though, I suspect it's going to be difficult to track these people down, and even when Habeas do, they will need to mount a prosecution in another country - wherever that happens to be. The spammers may even win given that each country enforces copyright laws differently.
According to the statement [habeas.com] given, the latest version of SpamAssassin should be able to filter these out. We're running what I think is the latest (2.61) and it still seems to be letting them through - thanks to the Habeas mark. I'm beginning to think I should just disable the Habeas rules completely and let these get scorded normally.
Re:Never likely to work (Score:4, Interesting)
Note that using the Habeas Headers to filter out such mail may be a copyright infringement, too.
See also the following Paragraph of the "HABEAS WHITELIST LICENSING AGREEMENT":
Re:Never likely to work (Score:2)
I never remember what I read about copyright laws (too boring!), but wouldn't the copyright only come into play if you are publishing the haiku? Using the haiku for filtering should be equivalent to mumbling it to yourself, and surely that is not illegal (yet)?
WTF are you talking about? (Score:3, Informative)
Please tell me you just made a mistake, and aren't smoking some really, really, really strong crack.
Re:Never likely to work (Score:4, Insightful)
Likewise.
The more people who do remove the SA rule for Habeas, however, the more damage this spammer has done to Habeas' customers -- and consequently, to Habeas.
Every system that starts using X-Habeas-SWE as an automatic "+5.0" (instead of (-5.0)) in their SA scoring mechanism, is another $BIGNUM in damages for which Habeas can sue when this spammer is finally brought to court.
This is the Habeas test case. Either Habeas is able to enforce its trademark and copyright, and sue this spammer off the face of the earth, or Habeas - the company - dies, due to the efforts of one spammer.
Re:Never likely to work (Score:3, Informative)
You have to enable network checks to filter these. Then when someone sends you an email with the Habeas mark, Spamassassin will check to see if the originating IP is on the infringer's list. If it is, then they don't get the credit for using the hiaku.
This assumes that Habeas ha
Stupid construct (Score:2, Interesting)
People are not interested in the value of the haikus. People are just using it as a key to check for clean mail.
Using copyright law in this context is imho pervertion of the law.
Purpose might or might not be an issue for the law depending on country.
Just give the spammers jailtime for spamming.
Re:Never likely to work (Score:2)
I also believe most of them reside in the US. Sure there are a _couple_ of foreign spammers, but I bet they are extraditable.
Except all the ones in Nigeria - but maybe the government could get tough there if we threatened to withhold foreign aid
I don't quite see the problem... (Score:3, Informative)
Looking at my spam-box, I find the usual stuff:
From ukKimble@mailthat.net Tue Jan 13 00:43:36 2004
X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring
X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated
X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm)
X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm)
X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE)
(tm). The sender of this
X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas
X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant
X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this
X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to .
Subject: Fwd: V|@gra, Vali(u)m, X(a)n@x. Prescribed Online and Shipped
... and finally, the real information as far as I'm concerned in in the last header:
X-Spambayes-Classification: spam; 1.00
So whether the spam is "legitimate" (is there anything like that?) or not, SpamBayes [spambayes.org] doesn't seem to have much trouble with it.
Easy to defeat.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Same type of thing if enough spammers use this trick, the lawyers will be too busy.
Did Habeas actually think this was going to work? I mean, spammers are willing to do ANYTHING to make sure Joe Public reads their garbage. Constantly changing tactics to evade filters, to write viruses specifically to generate more open proxies to send their garbage through, to Denial of Service attacks against those who try to filter out this stuff, to garbage lawsuits. This is nothing compared to those..
Check this out (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Check this out (Score:2)
Re:Check this out (Score:3, Interesting)
Now they are slashdotted.....spam problem cured.
Re:Check this out (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Check this out (Score:3, Funny)
I can imagine the caption too.
Torn anus? Our V1@gr@ and other medications may help your ailment.
Can't wait (Score:3, Funny)
You know I really tried, but I just can't weave a SCO comment into this message...
translation of article header (Score:5, Insightful)
Which should read:
The idea is that a spammer using said haiku to get through spamfilters can be prosecuted under the more stringent laws that are difficult to enforce instead of the weaker laws which have proven so hard to enforce.
I'm amused by the idea, but it seems to me that if you couldn't get (find) them under anti-spam laws (especially the newest ones) then how could you get them on copyright laws? Are the new anti-spam laws so lacking in punishment that they pale in comparison to copyright laws?
Re:translation of article header (Score:3, Informative)
In short, yes. CAN-SPAM, for the most part, weakened our ability to go after spammers, rather than strengthening it. It takes precedence over existing spam laws, and removes the power from individuals to go after spammers, even if a state law would have allowed them to. Copyright laws give the power back to the people, as it were.
Re:translation of article header (Score:3, Insightful)
No they don't.
The flaw with this scheme is that while it tries to stop you from being spammed, you have no recourse if you are spammed. The only party that can act is this essentially uninvolved third party which holds the copyright.
In other words, it has exactly the same problem you've (correctly) identified in CAN-SPAM.
Secondly, when it succeeds it's a bad precedent. It eats away at the principle of "reverse engineering for compatibility
Rule #1. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Rule #1. (Score:2)
Copyrighted spam (Score:3, Funny)
Extra SpamAssassin rules for this batch of spams (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Extra SpamAssassin rules for this batch of spam (Score:3, Informative)
Please note that there is not such domain as pharmawharehouse.biz. Habeas has missspelt the name on the web page, the proper domain is pharmawarehouse.biz.
next japanese technique (Score:5, Funny)
Scaling Up? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Scaling Up? (Score:2)
Disable habeas rule (Score:5, Informative)
add line
score HABEAS_SWE 0
I've said it before, I'll say it again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Spammers are sociopaths. They don't care that their efforts are always, without exception, criminal. They don't care that people don't want their junk. The best thing to do is to kill them and remove them from society.
Hopefully someone will soon snap and put a bullet in Alan Ralsky's head, signaling the start of the true anti-spam revolution and doing a great favour to the world.
Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again... (Score:2)
Haiku (Score:3, Funny)
You beat the filter
You have viagra for sale
Now taste the bullet
Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again... (Score:2)
When we raise enough we can hire a contract killer to do the hit (either from a usenet group like alt.contract.killers or from an ad in Solider of Fortune magazine).
[ HHOS! ]
Re:Some spam legitimate? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it only indicates that a sufficient number of Congress slime balls were bribed by the criminal outfit known as the Direct Marketers Assocation. Email spam is, and always will be, theft. Spammers deserve death, without exception and regardless of any DMA-crafted "rules" that they claim to be following. Since spammers a
Re:Some spam legitimate? (Score:2)
You can't lose! The voices in your head command you... KILL-KILL-KILL...
a replacement haiku (Score:4, Funny)
my moment of sartori [freeserve.co.uk]
sold fake viagra
huh? (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean, if I'm going to use haiku to get past spam filters, I'll just write my own instead of a copyrighted one. They take all of 30 seconds to write a decent haiku. Am I missing something here?
More, uh... why would a spammer say "Hey, I'm going to use this COPYRIGHTED HAIKU THAT SPECIFICALLY IS OWNED BY AN ANTI-SPAMMING OUTFIT TO SUE ME OVER" rather than write thei
Geeks with basic poetry skillz: Haiku verse form? (Score:3, Interesting)
How exactly does the haiku verse form go?
Like this?:
^_ ^_ _
_ _ _^^_ _
_ ^^_ ^_
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Additional info
Here the copyrighted Haiku - I believe the (tm) is part of it.
Winter into spring
brightly anticipated
like Habeas SWE (tm)
Attack of Haiku-Resistant Killer Spam (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, and I forgot - What happened to the CAN-SPAM ? [slashdot.org] How long before we have Attacks of the CAN-SPAM-Resistant Killer Spam.
Copyrighted Haiku (Score:3, Insightful)
FYI: The spammer's client had been hacked ... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://pharmac
Didn't do a very good job... (Score:2)
Re:Didn't do a very good job... (Score:2)
Re:Didn't do a very good job... (Score:3, Funny)
The *proper* way to do it is to delete everything from the server *except* for their customer's credit card and any other personal details. Those you put into the index.html file for the entire world to see and use as they see fit. It kills two birds with one stone you see; the spammer gets bitten, but more importantly a whole bunch of people might think twice before responding to a spam which is likely to be far more effective in the long run.
Make sure your report to Habeas (Score:5, Informative)
See: http://www.habeas.com/supportBlackList.html
Legally dubious (Score:2, Informative)
The purpose of copyright law is to protect original works of expression. There are also built in limitations the most notable of which is fair use. There is no bright line definition of fair use but quoting a few lines of Haiku hardly seems unfair. The attempt by a private party to turn c
Why should the spammers worry about copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) They subvert other people's computers to relay spam: illegal in most juristictions.
(2) They send out viruses and worms to break into other people's computers: illegal in most juristictions.
So, if they're already doing two illegal things, why should they worry about a third?
Re:Why should the spammers worry about copyright? (Score:5, Interesting)
Spam, in particular, is a combination of technical (SMTP is too trusting), economic (receiver pays the majority of the costs), and social (willing to do anything, don't care about existing laws).
On the technical side, there's small rays of hope. Reverse-MX proposals (SPF, LMAP) or Yahoo!'s domain-keys are trying to eliminate the Mack-truck sized loophole that allows domains to be forged and companies to be joe-job'd. This should also put a dent in the e-mail worm/spam problem or at least force those machines to route e-mail through a (likely) better-administered SMTP server. Bayesian seems to be working well still and has a bit of life left (multi-word / markov bayesian is probably next). Whitelisting of domains gets easier once the forging issue is taken care of. IP blacklists are still around (don't care for them personally, like hunting flies with a shotgun). We may even see e-mail get as far as requiring public-key signatures along with web-of-trust. I'd say that all e-mail will be required to be encrypted to each recipient's private key, but gov'ts would probably nix that. Individually, none of these technical proposals make much of an impact, but each one closes up yet another loophole.
Social-side I'm not sure of what is going to make a difference. Too many countries involved with different social mores or laws (or lack thereof).
Economic sanction is possible, but currently it's easy-as-sin to joe-job your competition - so there's a high risk of false-accusations. Plus, it's easy to move the stuff off-shore and out of reach of authorities. However, as some of the technical means come into mainstream it will hopefully drive spammer costs up (having to register new domains all the time, etc.).
pharmacourt.biz hacked? (Score:3, Informative)
This is what I find at their products page [pharmacourt.biz]: We are some stupid spammers!!
Re:pharmacourt.biz hacked? (Score:2, Informative)
BTW, as you are implying, this does not necissarily mean that one of the Slashdot-readers is responsible.
Haiku in the fight for spam? (Score:5, Funny)
Most ineffective effort
Ever to stop spam
(c) 2004 Mabu
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED!
Spam and AI (Score:3, Insightful)
Now comes the spam wars... Once again, a specific problem that must be solved: "How do we develop a method of letting legitimate mail get to us while filtering out spam with a minimum of error?" We don't have the government throwing billions at it, but because it affects the general public, there's an inordinate amount of businesses, academics, and hobbyists throwing brainpower at it.
Despite all the talk about keys and legal threats, verifications and warrants, they just provide hurdles to be overcome, not true barriers to spamming.
But you could train a person to screen your mail with a better level of efficiency than any spam filter on the market today. And that person could catch new spam tricks before they ever got through to you.
As we continuously try to develop better and better filtering systems, I believe that the war against spam could well be be our most prolific source of advances in artificial intelligence. Spammers will throw (purchased) brainpower at coming up with ways to defeat filters and filters will have to get smarter in response.
I know, I know... You could say that I'm looking for the silver lining in this hailstorm of unsolicited pitches. But really, am I so far off? We've got a problem, we're throwing resources at solving it... like the space race, like the arms race, technologies will come out of the spam race that will have amazing implications for our lives.
I hate spam. I would love to be left alone in a room with a spammer, a car battery, and some jumper cables. But at the same time, it's sort of neat to be watching this battle progress.
Greg
Don't be foolish... (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Habeas has shown a commitment to actually *EXPEND* The resources to go after spammers. If you dimish the value of the habeas mark by filtering out email with their mark in it, then they have nothing to protect. I personally don't have time to go after spammers. Anyone who has a proven track record of winning against spammers (which habeas has) should be encouraged!
2) There is a large number of users who have added the habeas mark to their e-mail headers based on the assumption that it was a protected mark that would ensure their mail *WASN'T* filtered out. If you start filtering on that mark you *WILL* falsely filter out a lot of legitimate mail.
A previous poster named Mehu, posted an excellent solution to the problem if you're using spamassassin:
"So, rather than just add a score of 0 for HABEAS_SWE, I figured I'd give them a chance & added the following to my ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs, which takes care of the current rash:
body PHARMAWHAREHOUSE
describe PHARMAWHAREHOUSE Link to pharmawharehouse.biz
body PHARMACOURT
describe PHARMACOURT Link to pharmacourt.biz
body VALUEPOINTMEDS
describe VALUEPOINTMEDS Link to valuepointmeds.biz
score PHARMAWHAREHOUSE 10
score PHARMACOURT 10
score VALUEPOINTMEDS 10
Looking through my mail, it turns out some of my valid mail actually does contain those headers (would never have noticed them), and a few spams, even w/ the haiku headers, have been blocked by HABEAS_VIOLATOR (RBL: Has Habeas warrant mark and on Infringer List), so the company does appear to be doing its job.."
-Chuck
Re:Don't be foolish... (Score:3, Interesting)
Incorrect. This spam was the first to reach my site bearing any Habeas mark. The Habeas mark, to my knowledge, has not kept any spam out of my co-worker's inboxes, nor has it made sure that any wanted mails made it through the filters. Our sole experience with the Habeas mark has been this infringing spammers using it to bypass our filter. We bounce 400 spams/minute with scores over 10, just to give you an idea
I decided to read a spam.. (Score:3, Interesting)
1) is the subject matter adult? yes
2) is it written like a five year old? yes
This doesn't seem that hard to me.
Re:I decided to read a spam.. (Score:3, Interesting)
You RegEx fans should check it out... it's a masterpiece!
--D
p.s. Define for me (in terms a computer can follow), what it means to write like a 5 year old.
Most spam is already actionable (Score:4, Interesting)
Under the CAN-SPAM act, ISPs can sue. If you read the definition of an "ISP" in the act, it's clear that a mail processing service like SpamCop would qualify. What's needed is a paid service like SpamCop that files at least one high-profile lawsuit a month, increasing to one a week as volume builds up. That would make a dent.
Large (Score:4, Interesting)
When I checked on net.admin.net-abuse.sightings, there are several hundred of these reported, and NONE of them use our domain. Checking a few at random, it looks like they are using many many many forged domains, so we are just getting the bounces from a tiny fraction of these these.
Re:frist port? (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, mother Anonymous!
You proud of your son?
Re:Just... make... me.... UGHRHGH!@~ (Score:2, Interesting)
From what I understand they are meant to somehow "poison" the bayesian filters out there so they can't do their job any longer. Maybe someone with more insight into the workings of bayesian filtering can tell us if this is feasible?
Re:Just... make... me.... UGHRHGH!@~ (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just... make... me.... UGHRHGH!@~ (Score:5, Informative)
The Spammer's Compendium [jgc.org]
I know, it's annoying (Score:2)
When people spend an eternity not making sense
I love it when a haiku comes together (Score:2)
You are Mister T.
I claim my five pounds.
PS. Someone stole your van.
Re: Here's some Haiku for Habeas. (Score:3, Funny)
Like a dying wind
Habeas screams to the sky
But they're still worthless
Experience says
The Habeas Haiku means
"This Message is Spam"
Habeas Haiku
To some, touching poetry
Me, I filter it.