BUZZHOST_STINGER wrote:
On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 14:39 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
On 29-May-2009, at 07:32, Andy Dorman wrote:
1. I could not find out WHY our IPs (we have a block of 32 for the
cluster of servers that my email was being sent from) were being
listed
I do have to add this would be a
On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 14:39 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 29-May-2009, at 07:32, Andy Dorman wrote:
> > 1. I could not find out WHY our IPs (we have a block of 32 for the
> > cluster of servers that my email was being sent from) were being
> > listed
I do have to add this would be a lie. A call t
On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 13:40 -0700, Bob O'Brien wrote:
> Actually, Richard, yes - I have management approval for what details I choose
> to share with any given online community.
Share? Oh Sorry Bob. I only had Barracuda down as digital thieves. Let
me see;
SPAM and 'VIRUS' (lol) 'FIREWALL'
BSMTPD
Bob O'Brien wrote:
Actually, Richard, yes - I have management approval for what details I choose
to share with any given online community. I am also learning to count Jann
among my friends, and I'm sure he would *appropriately* acknowledge your
greeting.
If your participation is at all typic
On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 13:40 -0700, Bob O'Brien wrote:
> Actually, Richard, yes - I have management approval for what details I
> choose to share with any given online community. I am also learning
> to count Jann among my friends, and I'm sure he would *appropriately*
> acknowledge your greeting.
Actually, Richard, yes - I have management approval for what details I choose
to share with any given online community. I am also learning to count Jann
among my friends, and I'm sure he would *appropriately* acknowledge your
greeting.
If your participation is at all typical of this community,
ANTICOM-STINGER a écrit :
> On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 12:16 -0600, J.D. Falk wrote:
>> Rob McEwen wrote:
>>
>>> Additionally, I'd like to ask, other than being a superb cash-generating
>>> machine, what good is a whitelist built upon pay-to-enter and NOT based
>>> on editorial decisions made by non-bia
ow) choose
> to implement directly.
>
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Neil Schwartzman [mailto:neil.schwartz...@returnpath.net]
> Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 11:58 AM
> To: Bob O'Brien; Spamassassin
> Subjec
eil Schwartzman [mailto:neil.schwartz...@returnpath.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 11:58 AM
To: Bob O'Brien; Spamassassin
Subject: Re: Barracuda Blacklist
On 29/05/09 4:09 PM, "Bob O'Brien" wrote:
> Neil,
>
> Based on our "Requests for Removal" filed over the p
On 29-May-2009, at 07:32, Andy Dorman wrote:
1. I could not find out WHY our IPs (we have a block of 32 for the
cluster of servers that my email was being sent from) were being
listed
And there are a LOT of stories out there like this. At this point in
time I don't care what anyone at Barr
On Fri, 29 May 2009, ANTICOM-STINGER wrote:
The Barracuda white list is an 'exclusive' club and I suspect money has
This applies to any whitelists, and I never use them, I think, I and my
staff are the *only* ones in a position to decide who to whitelist, and I
think most ISP/ASP's are of th
On Fri, 29 May 2009, Bob O'Brien wrote:
Barracuda Reputation does not arbitrarily list hosts. Messages have passed
through each host with characteristics indicative of spam. Those listings
would only have been cleared because someone contacted the BRBL team and
requested their clearance - e
On 29/05/09 4:09 PM, "Bob O'Brien" wrote:
> Neil,
>
> Based on our "Requests for Removal" filed over the past 3+ weeks from
> ReturnPath, the number of IPs that you are claiming to have had issues with
> appears inflated by a factor of nearly 50%.
Bob, I don't want to waste this group's tim
On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 12:16 -0600, J.D. Falk wrote:
> Rob McEwen wrote:
>
> > Additionally, I'd like to ask, other than being a superb cash-generating
> > machine, what good is a whitelist built upon pay-to-enter and NOT based
> > on editorial decisions made by non-biased e-mail administrators?
>
Spamassassin
Subject: Re: Barracuda Blacklist
On 28/05/09 10:42 AM, "Karsten Bräckelmann" wrote:
> Yes, every list does have occasional FPs. So your point about those 22
> listings is what exactly?
My point is the 409 false positives. Sorry if I was unclear or obtuse.
--
Neil
Rob McEwen wrote:
Additionally, I'd like to ask, other than being a superb cash-generating
machine, what good is a whitelist built upon pay-to-enter and NOT based
on editorial decisions made by non-biased e-mail administrators?
Those two aren't necessarily exclusive. The standards for inclusi
John Hardin wrote:
> It might be less confusing if that ad was presented *after* you've
> completed the traditional unlisting request...
Good point. And I also wonder, how many emailreg payments were made by
disparately frantic e-mail admins who normally don't ever send spam, but
had a security pr
On Fri, 29 May 2009, Andy Dorman wrote:
I went to emailreg.org because the bounce I got back directed me to this page
http://www.barracudacentral.org/reputation?r=1 which included this
quarter-page ad:
---
One way to get your email through spam filters even if you are listed on the
BRBL is to
Neil Schwartzman wrote:
Hold up now. Why did you goto emailreg.org?? That is the whitelisting
service. I'd go ahead and request a delist at
http://www.barracudacentral.org/rbl/removal-request
Worked well for me.
Good question.
I went to emailreg.org because the bounce I got back directed me
On 29/05/09 9:32 AM, "Andy Dorman" wrote:
> Neil Schwartzman wrote:
>>
>> Given the huge amount of bumph I've seen and heard about emailreg.org, I
>> figured it would be an interesting experiment to see if what everybody
>> feared was happening was true. It isn't. No big extortion plan on the pa
Neil Schwartzman wrote:
Given the huge amount of bumph I've seen and heard about emailreg.org, I
figured it would be an interesting experiment to see if what everybody
feared was happening was true. It isn't. No big extortion plan on the part
of emailreg and Barracuda that I can see.
Neil, I c
On 28.05.09 14:12, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
> * see the attachment for gross numbers, sorry, I can't show you specifics.
[-- Attachment #2: DNSBL Summary.pdf --]
[-- Type: video/x-flv, Encoding: base64, Size: 182K --]
... nice joke I'd say. Is there any reason not to put the att. somewhere to
the
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 21:16 -0400, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
> On 28/05/09 9:03 PM, "Karsten Bräckelmann" wrote:
>
> > Incentive for you, to get em delisted from BRBL. The funky question is,
> > is BRBL part of your weighted blacklist metric?
>
> BRBL was and is in test mode for possible use again
On 28/05/09 9:03 PM, "Karsten Bräckelmann" wrote:
> Incentive for you, to get em delisted from BRBL. The funky question is,
> is BRBL part of your weighted blacklist metric?
BRBL was and is in test mode for possible use against our whitelists.
Given the huge amount of bumph I've seen and heard
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 20:32 -0400, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
> On 28/05/09 8:19 PM, "Karsten Bräckelmann" wrote:
>
> >> Could be any of those. Why does it matter? Suspended IPs aren't on the
> >> list.
> >
> > Thus there's little or no incentive to get em delisted from blacklists,
> > no?
(That
On 28/05/09 8:19 PM, "Karsten Bräckelmann" wrote:
>> Could be any of those. Why does it matter? Suspended IPs aren't on the
>> list.
>
> Thus there's little or no incentive to get em delisted from blacklists,
> no?
\I don't understand your question. Incentive to whom? The client? Of course
th
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 18:06 -0600, J.D. Falk wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > > Suspended = removed from the whitelist, live in the client account
> > Suspended on request by the client, suspended due to complaints pending
> > investigation, or forcefully suspended due to abuse and violati
On 28/05/09 8:06 PM, "J.D. Falk" wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
>>> Enabled = on the whitelist
>>> Suspended = removed from the whitelist, live in the client account
>>> Disabled = removed from the client account
>>
>> Suspended on request by the client, suspended due to complaints pe
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Enabled = on the whitelist
Suspended = removed from the whitelist, live in the client account
Disabled = removed from the client account
Suspended on request by the client, suspended due to complaints pending
investigation, or forcefully suspended due to abuse and vi
thread here about emailreg, I will attend.
But can we please redirect this thread back to the original _blacklist_
question?
Bob "O`Bob" O'Brien
-Original Message-
From: Rob McEwen [mailto:r...@invaluement.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:10 AM
To: users@spa
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 15:52 -0400, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
> On 28/05/09 3:09 PM, "Karsten Bräckelmann" wrote:
>
> > I was merely arguing that not all blacklistings are necessarily bad,
> > just because they happen to be listed in SSC (or any other whitelist for
> > that matter), as I understood
Neil Schwartzman a écrit :
>
>
> On 28/05/09 9:35 AM, "Matt" wrote:
>
>> Is there a reason the Barracuda blacklist is not in the official checks by
>> Spamassassin yet? I keep thinking sometime "sa-update -D" will add it but
>> have yet to se
On 28/05/09 3:09 PM, "Karsten Bräckelmann" wrote:
> I was merely arguing that not all blacklistings are necessarily bad,
> just because they happen to be listed in SSC (or any other whitelist for
> that matter), as I understood your post.
Re-reading what I wrote, I can't see where you got that i
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 14:12 -0400, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
> On 28/05/09 11:39 AM, "Karsten Bräckelmann" wrote:
> > Wait, I was /not/ justifying emailreg.org -- actually not even talking
> > about it, but the certification service SSC as a sole base to overrule
> > any other listing.
>
> I am no
On 28-May-2009, at 09:26, Sean Leinart wrote:
Yes. Barracuda is a scam.
Can you elaborate a bit? Thanks :0)
Barracuda is run by the same people that run emailreg.org which is a
$20/year subscription per domain to not be listed in Barracuda's
blacklist. Barracuda's policy seems to be to lis
uot;
On May 28, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
On 28/05/09 9:35 AM, "Matt" wrote:
Is there a reason the Barracuda blacklist is not in the official
checks by
Spamassassin yet? I keep thinking sometime "sa-update -D" will add
it but
have yet to see it.
I
On 28/05/09 10:42 AM, "Karsten Bräckelmann" wrote:
> Yes, every list does have occasional FPs. So your point about those 22
> listings is what exactly?
My point is the 409 false positives. Sorry if I was unclear or obtuse.
--
Neil Schwartzman
Director, Accreditation Security & Standards
Certifi
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 11:10 -0400, Rob McEwen wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > We're not going down the path of judging blacklists based on whitelists
> > or certification services, or vice versa, do we?
>
> If the whitelist involves possibly questionable business practices
> (trying to res
Neil Schwartzman wrote:
-
Thank you for contacting Barracuda Networks regarding your issue. ...
There are a number of reasons your IP address may have been listed as
"poor", including:
...
8. In some rare cases, your recipients'
> -Original Message-
> From: LuKreme [mailto:krem...@kreme.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:19 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Barracuda Blacklist
>
>
> On 28 May 2009, at 07:35, Matt wrote:
>
> > Is there a reason the
On 28 May 2009, at 07:35, Matt wrote:
Is there a reason the Barracuda blacklist is not in the official
checks by Spamassassin yet?
Yes. Barracuda is a scam.
I keep thinking sometime "sa-update -D" will add it but have yet to
see it.
And hopefully you never will.
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> We're not going down the path of judging blacklists based on whitelists
> or certification services, or vice versa, do we?
>
If the whitelist involves possibly questionable business practices
(trying to reserve judgment here), then the information that Neil
provided
> On 28/05/09 9:35 AM, "Matt" wrote:
>
> > Is there a reason the Barracuda blacklist is not in the official checks by
> > Spamassassin yet? I keep thinking sometime "sa-update -D" will add it but
> > have yet to see it.
On 28.05.09 09:47, Neil Schw
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 09:47 -0400, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
> I would like to add some perspective to potential use of the BRBL.
>
> Three weeks ago, I began requesting de-listings of any IP (active or
> suspended) on Certified that was listed on the Barracuda BRBL. When I
> started on April 29 the
On 28/05/09 9:35 AM, "Matt" wrote:
> Is there a reason the Barracuda blacklist is not in the official checks by
> Spamassassin yet? I keep thinking sometime "sa-update -D" will add it but
> have yet to see it.
I would like to add some perspective to potential
Is there a reason the Barracuda blacklist is not in the official checks by
Spamassassin yet? I keep thinking sometime "sa-update -D" will add it but
have yet to see it.
Matt
46 matches
Mail list logo
