On 16/07/09 7:38 AM, "twofers" <twof...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And yet another SPAM from these opt-in guys.
SINGLE opt-in (SOI).
> I believe this group are nothing but covert Spammers abusing a privilage
> afforded them.
Which group? E Z Publishing? They are neither covert, nor spammers. They are
an ESP. As such, they certainly have their share of challenges, with regard
to client vetting and list provenance. Complaints about them here, and
elsewhere are not going unnoticed, I can assure you; we have had a few
sit-downs with them and it appears there is need for another. We do want to
work with this client to better their practices, and will continue to do so,
using the carrot & stick mthod of encouragement.
We do have sticks of several lengths and weighting to apply if need be, of
course.
I've BCCed our principal contact at EZP to alert him to the problem.
> I receive these spams at two separate email addresses, both I use exclusively
> for my business, there is no way I'd use these addresses as an opt-in for
> anything. They are not personal emails and I'd never consider using them as
> opt-in for anything. I don't opt-in for anything ever to begin with anyway.
Understood. But here's where it gets weird ...
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (2007-05-02) on
> H67646.safesecureweb.com
> X-Spam-Level:
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI,
> HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02,HTML_MESSAGE,LOCAL_URI_NUMERIC_ENDING,MISSING_MID,
> MPART_ALT_DIFF,SARE_UNSUB09 autolearn=no version=3.2.1
> X-Spam-Report:
> * 0.0 MISSING_MID Missing Message-Id: header
> * 1.3 SARE_UNSUB09 URI: SARE_UNSUB09
> * 2.0 LOCAL_URI_NUMERIC_ENDING URI: Ends in a number of at least 4
> digits
> * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
> * 1.1 MPART_ALT_DIFF BODY: HTML and text parts are different
> * 0.6 HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02 BODY: HTML has a low ratio of text to image
> area
> * -4.3 HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI RBL: Habeas Accredited Opt-In or Better
> * [66.59.8.161 listed in sa-accredit.habeas.com]
> Received: (qmail 17894 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2009 12:21:13 -0400
> Received: from mailengine.8lmediamail.com (66.59.8.161)
This IP is not currently on the Safe whitelist (formerly known as
HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI ). It was suspended some time ago.
Now, I am aware that we recently changed the DNS hives serving up Safe (aka
safelist aka Habeas) and I'm wondering if there is a glitch between SA and
our lists. I don't know.
I expect I need to take this up with the developer team, and bump it to
someone else over here. I've also BCCed our contacts at SA for clarification
> by mail.jelsma.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 2009 12:21:12 -0400
> Received-SPF: pass (mail.jelsma.com: SPF record at mailengine.8lmediamail.com
> designates 66.59.8.161 as permitted sender)
> Received: by mailengine.8lmediamail.com (PowerMTA(TM) v3.2r23) id hbo0ve0eutci
> for <embroid...@xxxxx.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:14:23 -0700 (envelope-from
> <streamsendboun...@mailengine.8lmediamail.com>)
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_1073964459106330"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Mailer: StreamSend - 23361
> X-Report-Abuse-At: ab...@streamsend.com
> X-Report-Abuse-Info: It is important to please include full email headers in
> the report
> X-Campaign-ID: 20812
> X-Streamsendid: 23361+362+1918562+20812+mailengine.8lmediamail.com
> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:14:24 -0700
> From: "Paul DiFrancesco: Eight Legged Media" <efly...@8lmediamail.com>
> To: embroid...@xxxxx.com
> Subject: Visit with over 25 suppliers
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>
--
Neil Schwartzman
Director, Certification Security & Standards
Return Path Inc.
0142002038
