Even the CSA guys told us not to use UCEProtect. Mit freundlichen Grüßen - Boris Behrens
> Am 03.11.2016 um 00:12 schrieb Kevin Miller <kevin.mil...@juneau.org>: > > Isn’t it obvious? It’s the NSA. J > > ...Kevin > -- > Kevin Miller > Network/email Administrator, CBJ MIS Dept. > 155 South Seward Street > Juneau, Alaska 99801 > Phone: (907) 586-0242, Fax: (907) 586-4588 Registered Linux User No: 307357 > > From: Joe Quinn [mailto:jqu...@pccc.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 2:56 PM > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: uceprotect issue > > On 11/2/2016 2:46 PM, Marc Stürmer wrote: > Zitat von Marco <fa...@ruparpiemonte.it>: > > > Sorry, I know this is not uceprotect list, but I don't know how to contact > uceprotect, their contact form is unavailable. > > It seems the problem starts on 30 october. Did you have noticed too something > about? > > UCE Protect has a very questionable reputation, foremost reason is that they > do charge money for delisting entries. > > And no one knows who's behind them, since they do not publish this kind of > information. They want to stay anonymous, that's why there is no easy way to > concat them on their home page. > > So you should really ask yourself: why do you trust them? > > I have to agree. Their inscrutability extends deep into the public-facing > parts of their infrastructure. Their MX doesn't have any registrant > information in their whois, and their DNS provider doesn't even have a > website. Their own domain uses a whois privacy service, and that service's > website is a single page for submitting email non-delivery reports to UCE > Protect. It's ridiculous.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
