On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 06:41 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote: > On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Mike > Cardwell<spamassassin-us...@lists.grepular.com> 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 A 127.0.0.4 > > m...@haven:~$ > > > > to be clear, I was explaining why the entry exists, not whether or not > it should be there. still don't think there is any conspiracy here, > probably just an outdated or inaccurate assumption. > > > > -- > > Mike Cardwell - IT Consultant and LAMP developer > > Cardwell IT Ltd. (UK Reg'd Company #06920226) http://cardwellit.com/ > > Here is a curious thing. I raised a ticket with CC about the spam only to have it answered under a different name;
received: from utileu01.rightnowtech.com (utileu01.rightnowtech.com [206.17.168.28]) Now, if you are in the business of legitimate email marketing, why are you sending your own control messages under a different company name and from a different range? Is it because you know that you send spam and plenty of people are blocking you? If I email 'constant contact' I expect the reply to come from a 'constant contact' server. This is all drifting. My own view is there are several entries in there that should not be. Constant Contact is just a strikingly obvious one.
