>
>On 09/03/2005 11:55:32, Alana Craig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> >
> >
> > I would like to include your contact information in an address book I am
> > creating for myself. Please enter your particulars using the link you see
> > below:
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.bebo.com/fr1/10076492a285606901b140803462c883765683d20
>
>
>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on baalam.qub.ac.uk
>X-Spam-Level:
>X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,
> RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2
>
>---- Start SpamAssassin results
>SpamAssassin Version 3.0.2 on baalam.qub.ac.uk
>-3.8 points, 5.0 required;
>-1.1 BAYES_40 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 20 to 40%
> [score: 0.2605]
>-4.3 RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED RBL: Sender is in Bonded Sender Program
>(trusted relay)
> [IronPort Bonded Sender -
><http://www.bondedsender.com>]
> 1.6 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST RBL: Envelope sender in
>postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
>
>---- End of SpamAssassin results
>
>
>should this obvious spam be allowed in BSP??
>
This one is definitely a close call; Is it spam? It may be
unsolicited, but there are no commercial references and the message
specifically states "creating for myself". I would tend to view it
as spam, but probably would "just delete" and not report it anywhere.
Now, if you agreed, then received any commercial email from
that domain or any related domain, that would seem to be a violation
of the BSP policy, and *should* then be reported.
I might even be tempted to create a single use account just
to test this guy. Then see if that account gets any spam, it would
be tracable directly to a BSP user and would seem to be a violation.
The only "questionable" issue I can find is the references to
"Birthday Alarm Inc." at bebo-munged.com, alonda-munged.com and of
course birthdayalarm-munged.com and that they use three different
addresses - all use the same telephone number and contacts, which
and the telephone number does appear to be a personal number, and is
an answering machine announcing the registrant by name, "Michael Birch"
(seemingly a British accent, but a S.F. telephone number), and is
without any "commercial" content. Even the address in S.F. is in an
area that is mixed residential and commercial (between U.S.F,, the
panhandle and Alamo Sq.) - so he could be really legit.
What do other people think?
Paul Shupak
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
