On 10/6/2013 7:09 PM, Alex wrote:
I'm using Kevin's KAM_FROM_URIBL_PCCC rules for the multi.pccc.com
URIBL. Why is it designed to be a poison pill? It caught cvent.com,
causing a bunch of mail to FP.
I'm just curious if this URIBL is indeed this trustworthy, if these
KAM rules are still used, and how it is working for you?
I use those rules ;-) And currently that RBL is in testing stages where
I am personally vetting all the data. So I believe the trustability is
quite high. Please email if you have questions and we do look at them.
cvent-munge.com was added on 9-24 and cventsurveys-munge.com added on 10-1.
I personally received the spam from them from what appears to be scraped
whois data: http://pastebin.com/Q0knc6ei has the headers for the two emails.
So if cvent is legit, they are being abused by people sending spam and I
consider them candidates for the list but I'm open to suggestions.
I then considered removing the entries but upon checking further, I
found more spams from people who work at cvents. And it appears they
have scraped my association with a law firm by address in whois (5335
wisconsin avenue) and tied me to Springvalley Law Group. Right address,
wrong suite, wrong company, still never had permission to spam me. They
are spammers and should be blocked. If you are using them, consider
taking your business elsewhere as they support spammers using their
system AND they themselves send spam.
I am also positive but only from memory that they spam an NPO I work
with as well all the time trying to get us to use their services.
I also might recommend you consider lowering the scores I am using. I
often write poison pill rules that the project would never allow but
they are based on careful analysis of my corpora. YMMV and I'm open to
feedback as I mentioned. Just don't expect to always like my decisions.
Regards,
KAM
