Re: Constant Contact

> When Constant > Contact gets a clue and automatically requests an opt-in confirmation > for ALL email addresses uploaded in bulk by their customers then I'll > stop adding a a high score in SA. The problem with that is that most of Constant Contact's customers are small business that may have us

Re: Constant Contact

I get junk from these guys all of the time, others that have followed the 'opt-out' IMO just use it to confirm an email address for sale to others, such as themselves. Maybe I am just extra paranoid, but marketers should just stick to a web search for people that want to purchase from them. Uns

RE: Constant Contact

Tara Natanson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Adam Katz > wrote: >> Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant >> Contact ? > > > Hello, > > I work for Constant Contact. We take reports of spam very seriously. >

RE: Constant Contact

marc, yes, yes it does make it spam if i have no idea who they are or why they are emailing me and/or my clients. it sure as all get out makes it spam. marc, are you boozing or just tired? - rh Perhaps, but it doesn't make it spam.

Re: Constant Contact

R-Elists wrote: I wouldn't say they are perfect but they try to be. It's close enough for my white list. They shut down abusers and the opt out works. marc, we shouldnt have to opt out... -rh Perhaps, but it doesn't make it spam.

Re: Constant Contact

Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > Do note that Hostkarma WHITE is not part of the stock rule-set. > Moreover, it is *your* score of a whopping -2.1 for the third-party DNS > BL test you're complaining about, that results in FNs. Last I checked > (which is a while ago, granted), I wouldn't score it that

Re: Constant Contact

Daniel J McDonald wrote: > On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 16:25 -0400, Adam Katz wrote: > >> My own proposal to fixing this is to bring back Blue Security's >> do-not-email list, which is to say a freely available index of >> secure hashes representing email addresses that have opted out of >> bulk email.

Re: Constant Contact

Hi, >> rawbody  __CCM_UNSUB >> /"https?:..visitor\.constantcontact.com\/[^<>]{60,200}>SafeUnsubscribe > Ouch!  Rawbody, that hurts. Do you mean that it's much more resource-intensive than a regular "body" check? When is it necessary (or possible) to use it over the URIDetail substitute you menti

Re: Constant Contact

On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 06:24, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote: > Remember, if the > sender was really clean, their would be zero need for CC. Absolute unadulterated BS. This is equivalent to saying "all of those lay-people who just get gmail or yahoo or hotmail accounts -- if they weren't spammer

Re: Constant Contact

On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 19:58 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > In other words, how comes you're only venting about the companies you > despise, and don't even mention the whitelist with a single word? > > guenther > You need to deal with your personality issues - this is *not* about *you* ei

Re: Constant Contact

On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 18:24 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote: > On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 18:53 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > > On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 14:24 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote: > > > [...] but as it's being discussed here - I'm guessing > > > somewhere in SA something is 'grea

Re: Constant Contact

On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 18:53 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 14:24 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote: > > On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 07:26 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote: > > > > [...] Why are we covering for their mistakes and > > > supporting a company that profits from sending

Re: Constant Contact

On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 14:24 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote: > On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 07:26 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote: > > [...] Why are we covering for their mistakes and > > supporting a company that profits from sending spam, even if its only > > sometimes, by whitelisting them? "We" aren't

RE: Constant Contact

> > I wouldn't say they are perfect but they try to be. It's > close enough for my white list. They shut down abusers and > the opt out works. > > marc, we shouldnt have to opt out... -rh

Re: Constant Contact

On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 09:30 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Saturday 17 October 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote: > >On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 07:26 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 5:47 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk > >> > >> wrote: > >> > On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 13:29 -0700, John

Re: Constant Contact

On Saturday 17 October 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote: >On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 07:26 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 5:47 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk >> >> wrote: >> > On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 13:29 -0700, John Hardin wrote: >> >> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, John Rudd wrote: >> >> > M

Re: Constant Contact

On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 07:26 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote: > On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 5:47 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk > wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 13:29 -0700, John Hardin wrote: > >> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, John Rudd wrote: > >> > >> > Me. I work for one of their clients (a University). One or two

Re: Constant Contact

On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 5:47 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote: > On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 13:29 -0700, John Hardin wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, John Rudd wrote: >> >> > Me.  I work for one of their clients (a University).  One or two of >> > our divisions use them for large mailings to our internal

Re: Constant Contact

Hi! One factor in scoring white list like mine is that different people have different definitions as to what is spam. And people have different values as to blocking spam at the expense of blocking good email. In my business if I block a good email it's worse than 100 spams getting through. I

Re: Constant Contact

On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 13:29 -0700, John Hardin wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, John Rudd wrote: > > > Me. I work for one of their clients (a University). One or two of > > our divisions use them for large mailings to our internal users. > > How is Constant Contact better than (say) GNU mailman fo

Re: Constant Contact

Adam Katz wrote: Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant Contact ? In preparing a list of HOSTKARMA_W violators for Marc, I noticed a very large amount of spam, coming from completely different companies, was sent through co

Re: Constant Contact

On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 16:25 -0400, Adam Katz wrote: > My own proposal to fixing this is to bring back Blue Security's > do-not-email list, which is to say a freely available index of secure > hashes representing email addresses that have opted out of bulk email. > (Recall that the controversial a

Re: Constant Contact

On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 15:09 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote: > I wouldn't say they are perfect but they try to be. It's close enough > for my white list. They shut down abusers and the opt out works. ^ This implies there is, in fact, abuse. Thus, they are not "t

Re: Constant Contact

Tara Natanson wrote: On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Adam Katz wrote: Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant Contact ? Hello, I work for Constant Contact. We take reports of spam very seriously. Complaints are processed through our abus

Re: Constant Contact

Hi, >> How is Constant Contact better than (say) GNU mailman for that purpose? I >> don't understand the concept of sending internal mail via an external third >> party... In addition to what's already been mentioned, CC also provides a nice template that people can drop their message into and cl

Re: Constant Contact

One factor in scoring white list like mine is that different people have different definitions as to what is spam. And people have different values as to blocking spam at the expense of blocking good email. In my business if I block a good email it's worse than 100 spams getting through. I am p

Re: Constant Contact

Adam Katz wrote: Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant Contact ? In preparing a list of HOSTKARMA_W violators for Marc, I noticed a very large amount of spam, coming from completely different companies, was sent through

Re: Constant Contact

On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 17:17 -0400, Adam Katz wrote: > Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 14:54 -0400, Adam Katz wrote: > > Inappropriate description. > > > > Inappropriate logic. IFF the terminology used would be appropriate, you > > rather should take the then-false listing up

Re: Constant Contact

Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 14:54 -0400, Adam Katz wrote: >> rawbody __CCM_UNSUB >> /"https?:..visitor\.constantcontact.com\/[^<>]{60,200}>SafeUnsubscribe > Ouch! Rawbody, that hurts. > > If you really can't tell from the / a link URI alone, you'd better have > a look at

Re: Constant Contact

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 13:29, John Hardin wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, John Rudd wrote: > >> Me.  I work for one of their clients (a University).  One or two of >> our divisions use them for large mailings to our internal users. > > How is Constant Contact better than (say) GNU mailman for that

Re: Constant Contact

In addition to constantcontact, can I add the following to the list of hosts I'd like people's input on as to whether it's spam: - blueskycommunications.com - pm0.net - topica.com IMHO, at least Constant Contact has legitimate senders. Topica is all crap mailings. That said, I score CC ju

Re: Constant Contact

On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 14:54 -0400, Adam Katz wrote: > > > Before I write a custom rule to add points to anything passing through > > > a constantcontact.com relay, I was wondering if anybody here had > > > thoughts on this. > I lied. I actually wrote a rule and stuck it in my testing area. As >

Re: Constant Contact

On 10/16/2009 10:25 PM, Adam Katz wrote: > I suppose it's possible that your customer base is large enough that there aren't any repeat offenders and that each case is unique ... digging through my archives, I don't see more than 2x of any message from a CC customer. look at this way, some sno

Re: Constant Contact

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, John Rudd wrote: Me. I work for one of their clients (a University). One or two of our divisions use them for large mailings to our internal users. How is Constant Contact better than (say) GNU mailman for that purpose? I don't understand the concept of sending internal

Re: Constant Contact

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Tara Natanson wrote: Hello, I work for Constant Contact. We take reports of spam very seriously. Complaints are processed through our abuse@ address but you won't ever hear what happened to it there other than an auto-ack. If you'd like to send me any complaints I can let

Re: Constant Contact

Tara- Thanks for writing me off-list. I was composing this reply when I saw your message the list come in. Email marketing is a HARD business to be in thanks to spammers that play by their own rules and the resulting necessity of confirmed-opt-in, which is often a show-stopper for the business (

Re: Constant Contact

Rob McEwen schrieb: > Just what I said. If an IP whitelist cause too many spams to get a "free > pass", then instead of using that whitelist as a free pass to the > inbox... instead... use it to bypass all checking of the sender IPs > against blacklists, but still do content spam filtering on the

Re: Constant Contact

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:07, R-Elists wrote: > >> >> So, even though I cringe when I hear a name like Constant >> Contact, it does serve a legitimate business need. > > says who? > Me. I work for one of their clients (a University). One or two of our divisions use them for large mailings to

Re: Constant Contact

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Adam Katz wrote: > Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant > Contact ? Hello, I work for Constant Contact. We take reports of spam very seriously. Complaints are processed through our abus

Re: Constant Contact

Warren Togami wrote: > For reasons like this I will not manually unsubscribe spam from > constantcontact.com or tell them what addresses were being sent. They > deserve a hurt reputation if they have a poor anti-spam policy. > Unsubscribing only the offending addresses only artificially hides the

Re: Constant Contact

On Friday, October 16, 2009, 11:49:43 AM, Adam Katz wrote: AK> After some web searches, I decided to use the unsubscribe feature, but AK> apparently I needed to unsubscribe every email address with every AK> company that uses constantcontact.com. To me, this means it is quite AK> clear that Const

Re: Constant Contact

On 10/16/2009 01:14 PM, Chris Owen wrote: On Oct 16, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Rick Macdougall wrote: Adam Katz wrote: Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant Contact ? Hi, Very legitimate. We have 4 or 5 clients who use it to

Re: Constant Contact

I wrote: >> Before I write a custom rule to add points to anything passing through >> a constantcontact.com relay, I was wondering if anybody here had >> thoughts on this. R-Elists wrote: > what are you using for your various rules to up the score on Constant > Contact emails so that nothing slips

Re: Constant Contact

On Friday 16 October 2009, R-Elists wrote: >> That domain name should earn an email that came through their >> servers an additional 2.5 points IMO. It has been a thorn in >> my side since 3, maybe 4 years now. > >snip > >> -- >> Cheers, Gene > >Gene, > >and anyone else that cares to share please.

RE: Constant Contact

> > That domain name should earn an email that came through their > servers an additional 2.5 points IMO. It has been a thorn in > my side since 3, maybe 4 years now. snip > -- > Cheers, Gene Gene, and anyone else that cares to share please... what are you using for your various rules to

Re: Constant Contact

On Friday 16 October 2009, Adam Katz wrote: >Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant >Contact ? > >In preparing a list of HOSTKARMA_W violators for Marc, I noticed a >very large amount of spam, coming from completely different

RE: Constant Contact

> > So, even though I cringe when I hear a name like Constant > Contact, it does serve a legitimate business need. snip > Chris Hoogendyk > Chris, -1 no disrespect to you intended, yet says who? our general experience with Constant Contact is negative. - rh

Re: Constant Contact

R-Elists wrote: >> Complaints liks this keep coming up for various whitelists. >> The usage alternative I just suggested may solve this problem >> for many people. Just what I said. If an IP whitelist cause too many spams to get a "free pass", then instead of using that whitelist as a free pass

RE: Constant Contact

here is a fine chance for everyone to vote on some new rule names... ill seed it... CONSTANT_PITA_BULK1 let's be creative now, it's Friday! well, it is always Friday, but you get the point... - rh

Re: Constant Contact

UCSC uses them for various announcement messages as well (I think they're mostly in-bound (ie. sending to UCSC addresses), but I don't know if that's 100% true). So, while I can't speak to whether or not they send spam, I can vouch that they are sometimes used to send ham. JRudd On Fri, Oct 16

RE: Constant Contact

> Complaints liks this keep coming up for various whitelists. > The usage alternative I just suggested may solve this problem > for many people. > > -- > Rob McEwen Mc, what usage alternative? - rh

Re: Constant Contact

Chris Hoogendyk wrote: Just to add another data point -- There is a local network of small tech entrepreneurs in my region. They have an email list for discussing various aspects of running small businesses (sometimes just one person out of their home), and one of the questions that frequently

Re: Constant Contact

MySQL Student wrote: Hi, Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant Contact ? Sometimes abused, but too legit to outright block based on sending IP, imo. Just to add another data point -- There is a local

Re: Constant Contact

Hi, >> Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant >> Contact ? > > Sometimes abused, but too legit to outright block based on sending IP, imo. In addition to constantcontact, can I add the following to the list of hosts I'd like

Re: Constant Contact

On Oct 16, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Rick Macdougall wrote: Adam Katz wrote: Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant Contact ? Hi, Very legitimate. We have 4 or 5 clients who use it to send out emails to their subscribers.

Re: Constant Contact

Adam Katz wrote: Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant Contact ? Hi, Very legitimate. We have 4 or 5 clients who use it to send out emails to their subscribers. How ever, it can and does get abused by spammers from

Re: Constant Contact

Adam Katz wrote: > Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant > Contact ? > Sometimes abused, but too legit to outright block based on sending IP, imo. > The biggest problem is that they're well seeded in the DNS whitelists,

RE: Constant Contact

I've heard ads on the radio for Constant Contact before, so I would guess they're legitimate. Thomas E. Casartello, Jr. Staff Assistant - Wireless/Linux Administrator Information Technology Wilson 105A Westfield State College Red Hat Certified Technician (RHCT) -Original Message- From: