At 11:00 06-07-2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Have you handled spam or irate customer getting spam from Constant
Contact?
I prefer not to comment on that.
What do you think about Constant Contact having a white list score in
Spamassassin despite being listed in the multi.uri?
There are
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 10:36 -0700, SM wrote:
At 10:56 05-07-2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Well, I can only take you at face value that you are here representing
Constant Contact. If I call up the office switchboard Tara, can I speak
with you there? It's just
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 10:36 -0700, SM wrote:
> At 10:56 05-07-2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> >Well, I can only take you at face value that you are here representing
> >Constant Contact. If I call up the office switchboard Tara, can I speak
> >with you there? It's just I've called up Constant
At 10:56 05-07-2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Well, I can only take you at face value that you are here representing
Constant Contact. If I call up the office switchboard Tara, can I speak
with you there? It's just I've called up Constant Contact and hit #9 for
the directory and your name is
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 11:00 -0600, J.D. Falk wrote:
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> sorry, I am on several private lists. Lists I have been on for 10
> >> years through a few different employers. If I signed up for those
> >> lists with my @constantcont
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
sorry, I am on several private lists. Lists I have been on for 10
years through a few different employers. If I signed up for those
lists with my @constantcontact.com address my employer would own that
mail. I don't really think they'd read my mail, but
;> addresses - or at least a server?. After all, as you put it 'We are an
>>> ESP'.
>>
>> sorry, I am on several private lists. Lists I have been on for 10
>> years through a few different employers. If I signed up for those
>> lists with my @const
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 09:28 -0400, Tara Natanson wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 3:05 AM,
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you can look at your customer;
> >
> > Received: from ccm01.constantcontact.com ([63.251.135.74]) by
> > From:
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 18:36 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Sat, July 4, 2009 07:16, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> . Even Benny's
> > "You don't have SPF so I'm blocking you" was clearly b/s when I tried it
> > with other MX's with no SPF. Nothing more than a kiddy rule set-up
> > FWICS.
>
> t
On Sat, July 4, 2009 07:16, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
. Even Benny's
> "You don't have SPF so I'm blocking you" was clearly b/s when I tried it
> with other MX's with no SPF. Nothing more than a kiddy rule set-up
> FWICS.
thanks for 170 spam mails, your /29 is now perm blocked in my postfwd,
On Fri, July 3, 2009 23:29, Res wrote:
> Why are people still using the outdated and no longer recommended
> domain TXT method?
2 problems:
1: sa uses default mail::spf::query
2: dns hosters use txt for anything even there bind support spf record
3: what about dkim then ? :)
> The RR type SPF
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 3:05 AM,
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> Perhaps you can look at your customer;
>
> Received: from ccm01.constantcontact.com ([63.251.135.74]) by
> From: GearSourceEurope
> Reply-To: i...@gearsourceeurope.com
> Sender: GearSourceEurope
I'll l
t over, please feel free to send it to me and I'll see
> what I can share with you about the outcome. You can always send to
> abuse@ but will likely not get anything more than the auto-ack.
>
> I'm sorry for the intrusion on your list and I don't want this to get
> too off
to get
too off topic so please feel free to reply to me off list.
Tara Natanson
Constant Contact
Mail Operations
tnatan...@constantcontact.com
On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 07:29 +1000, Res wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> >
> > On Fri, July 3, 2009 15:13, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > folowup:
> >
> > v=spf1 ip4:62.233.82.168 ip4:82.70.24.238 mx ~all
> >
> > in dns
> >
> > v=spf1 ip4:62.233.82.168 ip4:82.70.24.238
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Fri, July 3, 2009 15:13, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
folowup:
v=spf1 ip4:62.233.82.168 ip4:82.70.24.238 mx ~all
in dns
v=spf1 ip4:62.233.82.168 ip4:82.70.24.238 mx ~all
localhost. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"
mail1.buzzhost.co.uk. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -
through the Barracuda 'Whitelist' - allow me to
share a small part of it;
consolenergy.com
consolidatedpapers.com
consortaart.com
consortia.org.il
conspiracy-theory.org
constablevillevillage.us
constantcontact.com
constantinevillage.us
constellation.com
constellationenergy.com
constitution.us
con
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Randal, Phil wrote:
From http://www.constantcontact.com/pricing/index.jsp , they say:
"Monthly fee is based on the number of contacts in your email list"
There's an immediate conflict of interest - if they want to keep their
income high, they're going to encourage customer
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 18:27 +0200, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> (You do know what "legacy" means, right?)
>
> > Sure - do you? If it's left in the core code because the URI never
> > listed CC in the past that makes it legacy to me. If we consider that
> > argument
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
(You do know what "legacy" means, right?)
Sure - do you? If it's left in the core code because the URI never
listed CC in the past that makes it legacy to me. If we consider that
argument now that cc *is* listed by urbl then the legacy argument that
was used, is
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 17:31 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Fri, July 3, 2009 17:23, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 16:54 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> >> On Fri, July 3, 2009 16:31, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 15:53 +0200, Benny Pedersen w
On Fri, July 3, 2009 17:23, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 16:54 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> On Fri, July 3, 2009 16:31, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 15:53 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> >> On Fri, July 3, 2009 15:13, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk w
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 16:54 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Fri, July 3, 2009 16:31, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 15:53 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> >> On Fri, July 3, 2009 15:13, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> >>
> >> folowup:
> >>
> >> v=spf1 ip4:62.233.82.168 ip4:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Michael Grant wrote:
> In defense of Constant Contact, they are in the business of sending
> out mailings for people, they are not themselves spammers. They
> perform a service and they do it as best they can given the
> circumstances in which they work.
>
arms de
On Fri, July 3, 2009 16:31, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 15:53 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> On Fri, July 3, 2009 15:13, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> folowup:
>>
>> v=spf1 ip4:62.233.82.168 ip4:82.70.24.238 mx ~all
>>
>> in dns
>>
>> v=spf1 ip4:62.233.82.168 ip4:8
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 15:53 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Fri, July 3, 2009 15:13, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> folowup:
>
> v=spf1 ip4:62.233.82.168 ip4:82.70.24.238 mx ~all
>
> in dns
>
> v=spf1 ip4:62.233.82.168 ip4:82.70.24.238 mx ~all
> localhost. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"
> mail1.bu
In defense of Constant Contact, they are in the business of sending
out mailings for people, they are not themselves spammers. They
perform a service and they do it as best they can given the
circumstances in which they work.
I have used them to send out mail to mailing lists of a non-profit
orga
On Fri, July 3, 2009 15:13, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
folowup:
v=spf1 ip4:62.233.82.168 ip4:82.70.24.238 mx ~all
in dns
v=spf1 ip4:62.233.82.168 ip4:82.70.24.238 mx ~all
localhost. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"
mail1.buzzhost.co.uk. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"
mail2.buzzhost.co.uk. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -a
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 14:54 +0200, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> m...@haven:~$ host constantcontact.com.multi.uribl.com
> >> constantcontact.com.multi.uribl.com A 127.0.0.4
> >> m...@haven:~$
>
> > Oh Dear - that kind of rains on the parade of the 'legacy'
Original Message
Subject: Re: constantcontact.com
From:"rich...@buzzhost.co.uk"
Date:Fri, July 3, 2009 15:04
To: "
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
m...@haven:~$ host constantcontact.com.multi.uribl.com
constantcontact.com.multi.uribl.com A 127.0.0.4
m...@haven:~$
Oh Dear - that kind of rains on the parade of the 'legacy' argument and
puts the ball into the SA court.
Actually, it gives strength t
On Fri, July 3, 2009 12:26, Mike Cardwell wrote:
> m...@haven:~$ host constantcontact.com.multi.uribl.com
> constantcontact.com.multi.uribl.com A 127.0.0.4
> m...@haven:~$
skib in sa forbid it to hit, silly :)
--
xpoint
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Should that be Hi$torical Rea$ons ?
If there was a monetary reason (aka bribe), I'd think CC would have been
whitelisted.
As it is, CC is *not* whitelisted in SA. At least not according to your
own posts. What you have noted is that CC is *skipped* by *one* (1
On Fri, July 3, 2009 10:14, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> Constant contact will tell you they are opt-in. That is B/S.
> The are using a honeypot address used only in usenet post from around 2
> years ago. It is always bounced with a 550, but still they keep
> knocking.
v=spf1 ptr dom=buzzhost
grey.uribl.com - This lists contains domains found in UBE/UCE, and
possibly honour opt-out requests. It may include ESPs which allow
customers to import their recipient lists and may have no control over
the subscription methods. This list can and probably will cause False
Positives depe
Le 03/07/2009 12:19, Justin Mason a écrit :
Going by bug 5905 though, and this report, we should probably remove
it from the whitelist.
Is there any *clean* way (i.e. something that could be put in local.cf
or equivalent in order to override files updated by sa-update) for users
to remove thi
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 06:41 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Mike
> Cardwell wrote:
> > Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> >
> >> I think the point was that the URIBL's are never going to be listing
> >> these domains, so why waste time looking them up
> >
> > m...@haven:~$ host consta
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Mike
Cardwell wrote:
> Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>
>> I think the point was that the URIBL's are never going to be listing
>> these domains, so why waste time looking them up
>
> m...@haven:~$ host constantcontact.com.multi.uribl.com
> constantcontact.com.multi.uribl.com
On 7/3/2009 12:32 PM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 11:26 +0100, Mike Cardwell wrote:
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
I think the point was that the URIBL's are never going to be listing
these domains, so why waste time looking them up
m...@haven:~$ host constantcontact.com.multi.uri
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 11:26 +0100, Mike Cardwell wrote:
> Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>
> > I think the point was that the URIBL's are never going to be listing
> > these domains, so why waste time looking them up
>
> m...@haven:~$ host constantcontact.com.multi.uribl.com
> constantcontact.com.multi.uribl
On 7/3/2009 12:19 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 10:14,
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:06 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
Are you reporting these spams to them?
Yes - but you would thing a
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 11:19 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 10:14,
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:06 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> >> I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
> >> Are you reporting these spams to them?
> >
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
I think the point was that the URIBL's are never going to be listing
these domains, so why waste time looking them up
m...@haven:~$ host constantcontact.com.multi.uribl.com
constantcontact.com.multi.uribl.com A 127.0.0.4
m...@haven:~$
--
Mike Cardwell - IT Consult
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>> I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
>> Are you reporting these spams to them?
>>
>> --j.
>>
>
> From what I've seen, most of the traffic from them probably doesn't
> qualify as spam by t
On 7/3/2009 12:11 PM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 12:06 +0200, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 7/3/2009 11:14 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:06 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
Are yo
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:11 AM,
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 12:06 +0200, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
>> On 7/3/2009 11:14 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:06 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
>> >> I've heard that they are diligent about terminating ab
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 10:14,
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:06 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
>> I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
>> Are you reporting these spams to them?
>>
> Yes - but you would thing a log full of 550's may be a clue.
>
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 12:06 +0200, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> On 7/3/2009 11:14 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:06 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> >> I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
> >> Are you reporting these spams to them?
> >>
> >
On 7/3/2009 11:14 AM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:06 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
Are you reporting these spams to them?
Yes - but you would thing a log full of 550's may be a clue.
What concerns me
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 05:16 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> >From what I've seen, most of the traffic from them probably doesn't
> qualify as spam by the common definition. It is, however, stuff that
> nobody here wants.
I think we are all to generous in what we consider to be 'spam' -v-
'ham'.
If
; by IP) have been a nagging source of spam for us. I'm just wondering why
> >>> 25_uribl.cf has this line in it:
> >>>
> >>> ## DOMAINS TO SKIP (KNOWN GOOD)
> >>>
> >>> # Don't bother looking for example domains as per RFC 2606.
&
>>> ## DOMAINS TO SKIP (KNOWN GOOD)
>>>
>>> # Don't bother looking for example domains as per RFC 2606.
>>> uridnsbl_skip_domain example.com example.net example.org
>>>
>>> ..
>>> uridnsbl_skip_domain constantcontact.com corporate-ir.net cox.net
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:06 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
> Are you reporting these spams to them?
>
Yes - but you would thing a log full of 550's may be a clue.
What concerns me is SpamAssassin effectively white listing spammers
n example.com example.net example.org
>>
>> ..
>> uridnsbl_skip_domain constantcontact.com corporate-ir.net cox.net cs.com
>>
>> Is this a uri that is really suitable for white listing ?
>
> A set of perl modules has been uploaded to cpan today for talking to the
&g
m example.net example.org
......
uridnsbl_skip_domain constantcontact.com corporate-ir.net cox.net cs.com
Is this a uri that is really suitable for white listing ?
The biggest offenders for me fall in these ranges;
63.251.135.64 - 63.251.135.127
66.151.234.144 - 66.151.234.159
208.75.120.0 -
domains as per RFC 2606.
uridnsbl_skip_domain example.com example.net example.org
..
uridnsbl_skip_domain constantcontact.com corporate-ir.net cox.net cs.com
Is this a uri that is really suitable for white listing ?
A set of perl modules has been uploaded to cpan today for talking to the
Cons
le domains as per RFC 2606.
> > uridnsbl_skip_domain example.com example.net example.org
> >
> > ..
> > uridnsbl_skip_domain constantcontact.com corporate-ir.net cox.net cs.com
> >
> > Is this a uri that is really suitable for white listing ?
> >
> >
> >
Th
wns too (and
I'm lazy).
> 25_uribl.cf has this line in it:
>
> ## DOMAINS TO SKIP (KNOWN GOOD)
>
> # Don't bother looking for example domains as per RFC 2606.
> uridnsbl_skip_domain example.com example.net example.org
>
> ..
> uridnsbl_skip_domain constantcon
sbl_skip_domain example.com example.net example.org
..
uridnsbl_skip_domain constantcontact.com corporate-ir.net cox.net cs.com
Is this a uri that is really suitable for white listing ?
59 matches
Mail list logo
