Re: The www[variations]continue....
Am 2009-07-17 09:46:28, schrieb Ben: Dan, Thanks for the rules. I am using AE_MED42 from a previous thread, is this AE_MED44 meant to replace this or work in addition to it? Also just curious, why the low score? With the default required hits of 5.0 and this in my setup being the only rule to hit it would not be tagged as spam. Am i missing something or have you lowered your required hits? I have scored it with 10.00 because the stupid AWL which scores in 30% of all cases with -5.00. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack c/o Shared Office KabelBW ICQ #328449886 +49/177/9351947Blumenstasse 2 MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 77694 Kehl/Germany IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: The www[variations]continue....
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 09:45, Michelle Konzacklinux4miche...@tamay-dogan.net wrote: Am 2009-07-17 09:46:28, schrieb Ben: Dan, Thanks for the rules. I am using AE_MED42 from a previous thread, is this AE_MED44 meant to replace this or work in addition to it? Also just curious, why the low score? With the default required hits of 5.0 and this in my setup being the only rule to hit it would not be tagged as spam. Am i missing something or have you lowered your required hits? I have scored it with 10.00 because the stupid AWL which scores in 30% of all cases with -5.00. sounds like you should turn off the AWL? --j.
20_sought.cf from http://yerp.org/rules/stage/ empty
did this ruleset get discontinued? I have... # Note: rule names are based on a hash of the content pattern. meta JM_SOUGHT_1 (0) score JM_SOUGHT_1 0 describe JM_SOUGHT_1 Body contains frequently-spammed text patterns
Opt In Spam
Neil Rocks ! Thanks Neil. Wes --- On Thu, 7/16/09, Neil Schwartzman neil.schwartz...@returnpath.net wrote: From: Neil Schwartzman neil.schwartz...@returnpath.net Subject: Re: Opt In Spam To: twofers twof...@yahoo.com, Spamassassin users@spamassassin.apache.org Date: Thursday, July 16, 2009, 1:29 PM FOLLOW-UP: A process was hung on one of the 20 hives serving the whitelists and reported this IP as being listed. We've restarted the process and it is no longer reporting incorrectly. On 16/07/09 8:05 AM, Neil Schwartzman neil.schwartz...@returnpath.net wrote: 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 -- Neil Schwartzman Director, Certification Security Standards Return Path Inc. 0142002038
Re: The www[variations]continue....
On Fri, July 17, 2009 11:14, Justin Mason wrote: I have scored it with 10.00 because the stupid AWL which scores in 30% of all cases with -5.00. score AWL 10 ? perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AWL see factor sounds like you should turn off the AWL? it works for me :) -- xpoint
Re: 20_sought.cf from http://yerp.org/rules/stage/ empty
On Thu, July 16, 2009 16:06, Robert Brooks wrote: did this ruleset get discontinued? I have... nope still active, you just got a dynamic file without any seeks -- xpoint
Re: 20_sought.cf from http://yerp.org/rules/stage/ empty
Cc'ing reporter, not a list subscriber.
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 15:06 +0100, Robert Brooks wrote:
did this ruleset get discontinued? I have...
meta JM_SOUGHT_1 (0)
This was an intermediate glitch, has been fixed yesterday already.
Thanks for the heads-up.
--
char *t=\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4;
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;il;i++){ i%8? c=1:
(c=*++x); c128 (s+=h); if (!(h=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
spamd.exe won't stay running...
If I try to run the spamd.exe service it will run as a process up to around 24k of memory usage then quit out. nothing showing in error log or anything else??? I've tried to run it by itself... also tried running it within a daemon service provider such as NTrunner for example but no joy.. any ideas anyone? I just to find out why the service keeps quitting?? if I run the spamassassin services without using the spamd side of things it runs fine on the server but obviously uses a high amount of CPU instead of the spamd service which I'm lead to believe is more efficient? thanks for any replies.. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/spamd.exe-won%27t-stay-running...-tp24533158p24533158.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: 20_sought.cf from http://yerp.org/rules/stage/ empty
Benny Pedersen wrote: On Thu, July 16, 2009 16:06, Robert Brooks wrote: did this ruleset get discontinued? I have... nope still active, you just got a dynamic file without any seeks ok, I have rules in the current 20_sought.cf, thanks for clarifying this. (will sort out my subscribed address to the list too)
Return Path Safe whitelist UPDATE [was: Opt In Spam]
On 16/07/09 11:39 AM, LuKreme krem...@kreme.com wrote: * -4.3 HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI RBL: Habeas Accredited Opt-In or Better * [66.59.8.161 listed in sa-accredit.habeas.com] If you search for HABEAS_ACCREDITED you will find that a LOT of admins either drop these scores to very low numbers, or actually set them slightly positive. I'm not certain as to how a search such as you suggest would reveal any indication of this. Please explain. In my mailspool they are a spam indicator and I have them scored as such: score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI 1.0 score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI 1.5 I fully understand if you do/did not want to use our whitelist (keep reading, we've made a few changes), however, we have historically blocked lookups from people with this type of scoring when we became aware of such things. I think it is silly to be punitive, and more than a little naïve. I have regularly posted here as to the work that we do, how we do it, and the challenges of migrating the poorly-kept legacy Habeas Safe whitelist to our systems. The migration work is ongoing, about 95% of the way there. However, the last 5% is non-trivial. That said, from a more administrative side here are some facts and figures that may interest you: - In the past six months we have ended our relationship with 113 companies on Safe - We have deleted at least 2.5K IPs associated with those companies - We have added hundreds, if not 1,000 IPs from our Certified programme members, companies held to extremely exacting performance metrics, including complaint feeds from Hotmail, Yahoo!, two anonymous webmail providers. VALUE ADDS We have actively begun compliance on Safe whitelist members for things like: - spamtraps (from several sources to which Spamassassin does NOT have access) - bounce-processing efficacy (again, something SA cannot do for you) - Recursive DNS - nameserver snowshoeing. We do not allow one NS/domain to avoid domain reputation - WHOIS transparency - no proxy services - disclosure of sign-ups, privacy policy present and reasonable Future plans: - Automation (including intra-day checks of DNSBLs, trap hits, and so on) - re-jigging our programme metrics, standards and license agreement to be coherent (we are still labouring under legacy agreements in some cases) - Overall programme/client/IP SA scoring for both our whitelist products, Safe and Certified, using our massive corpus (not to belittle Justin's rule scoring efforts, but he uses what he readily admits is a very small corpus). We have live data feeds from the world's largest receiving sites, we run FBLs for at least a dozen of receivers, and we intend to make good use of this data. I don't know how long it will take until an SA score will become a compliance metric, or if it ever will, time will tell, but I am very excited to see what comes of this project. - Continual client audits especially of legacy Safe customers. IOW, we take all this stuff very seriously, have committed resources both financial, development, and human to this end, and we greatly value our longstanding relationship with the Spamassassin user community. So, bottom line: Zero-out our scoring? That is and will always be your right. Making it a positive spam sign?? Well, if you run a home system with no users, I suppose no damage done. If you are running SA in front of actual users at a business installation, I'd think it very brave to incur known false positives, and reject mail they potentially want, especially in this job market. -- Neil Schwartzman Director, Accreditation Security Standards Certified | Safelist Return Path Inc. 0142002038 The opinions contained herein are my personal stance and may not reflect the viewpoint of Return Path Inc.
spamd.exe error update - found log..here's the error - but what does it mean?
This is the error I'm getting when running spamd.exe: Fri Jul 17 13:24:01 2009 [4120] error: getprotobyname(tcp): Unknown error at spamd.raw line 605. Any ideas? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/spamd.exe-error-update---found-log..here%27s-the-error---but-what-does-it-mean--tp24533526p24533526.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Plugin extracting text from docs
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: I've been thinking about it. The pdftohtml could provide interesting infromations like colour informations that could lead to better spam detection. Any experiences with this? I've been thinking a bit more about this. My current plan is to download the trunk version of SA from SVN to a development system and put a decent way for plugins to ask SA to render the extracted HTML into visible, invisible, meta, etc. Once done and somewhat tested I'll see what the devs thinks about my patch. It shouldn't be hard at all, it's a small change to Mail::SpamAssassin::Message::Node, but I never seem to have as much time as I need for even half of my work and projects... :-/ If the patch is accepted, my ExtractText plugin will use the opened up functionality if it's there. If it's not any extracted HTML will be added using set_rendered as it does now. /Jonas -- Jonas Eckerman Fruktträdet Förbundet Sveriges Dövblinda http://www.fsdb.org/ http://www.frukt.org/ http://whatever.frukt.org/
Re: spamd.exe error update - found log..here's the error - but what does it mean?
This is the error I'm getting when running spamd.exe: Fri Jul 17 13:24:01 2009 [4120] error: getprotobyname(tcp): Unknown error at spamd.raw line 605. Any ideas? Do you have c:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc\protocol and the line with tcp in it?
Re: spamd.exe error update - found log..here's the error - but what does it mean?
Do you have c:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc\protocol and the line with tcp in it? yes I have that... -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/spamd.exe-error-update---found-log..here%27s-the-error---but-what-does-it-mean--tp24533526p24534595.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: spamd.exe error update - found log..here's the error - but what does it mean?
Do you have c:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc\protocol and the line with tcp in it? yes I have that... ..or if the spamd.exe is run under cygwin, the file should be c:\cygwin\etc\protocol or whatever, under the cygwin structure of course. I have not managed to get spamd.exe into my machine. Tried compiling with cpan under cygwin.. I compiled but tests failed badly.
Re: Return Path Safe whitelist UPDATE [was: Opt In Spam]
On 17-Jul-2009, at 06:24, Neil Schwartzman wrote: On 16/07/09 11:39 AM, LuKreme krem...@kreme.com wrote: * -4.3 HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI RBL: Habeas Accredited Opt-In or Better * [66.59.8.161 listed in sa-accredit.habeas.com] If you search for HABEAS_ACCREDITED you will find that a LOT of admins either drop these scores to very low numbers, or actually set them slightly positive. I'm not certain as to how a search such as you suggest would reveal any indication of this. Please explain. Did you try the search and read the emails for, oh, I don't know, let’s just say this year? In my mailspool they are a spam indicator and I have them scored as such: score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI 1.0 score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI 1.5 I fully understand if you do/did not want to use our whitelist (keep reading, we've made a few changes), however, we have historically blocked lookups from people with this type of scoring when we became aware of such things. I think it is silly to be punitive, and more than a little naïve. It's very simple, Habeas headers are a fairly strong indicator of spam in my mail spool. I search all the mail for habeas headers and it shows up about 90% in spam and 10% in ham. I score it thus. To be perfectly fair, I SHOULD score SOI at about 3.0 based on my mailspool. I have regularly posted here as to the work that we do, how we do it, and the challenges of migrating the poorly-kept legacy Habeas Safe whitelist to our systems. That doesn't change the fact that your headers show up overwhelmingly in unwanted mail. That is my only metric. I wouldn't care if you were the anti-spam avatar himself come down from on high; my scoring is based on my mailspool. [Promo adspeak removed] So, bottom line: Bottom line is as I said, habeas headers are a strong spam indicator and will be scored as such until (and if) that ever changes. The scores applied are not high enough to push the rare legitimate email over a threshold, but are high enough to prevent my having to deal with any of the borderline cases that might not get tagged otherwise. Zero-out our scoring? That is and will always be your right. I wold only zero out your scoring is the ham/spam balance was fairly close to 1:1 and not 1:10 as it is. Making it a positive spam sign?? Well, if you run a home system with no users, I suppose no damage done. If you are running SA in front of actual users at a business installation, I'd think it very brave to incur known false positives, What false positives? I've not had anyone ever complain about a miss- tagged habeas-containing message. -- These are the thoughts that kept me out of the really good schools. -- George Carlin
RE: Return Path Safe whitelist UPDATE [was: Opt In Spam]
Neil it appears that you and your organization are taking an excellent proactive stance and work ethic against spam and UCE etc... and you should be commended for that. the thing is, the SA community and the world at large should not be your free customer compliance labor force. we should be the excepetion to the rule in helping and i highly recommend internal metrics that meter catch junk as it happens or thereabouts. you should know before we do. :-) that said, possibly you should educate the SA community to the specifics of your rulesets and proper scoring and why... at least provide a specific URL set to the list that educates the likes of us without watered down sales hype. otherwise it is possible many admins might or will continue to score as a spammy factor instead of a hammy or less hammy factor and possible defeat some of the dilligent and hard work your org is putting forth takr, - rh
spamd socket partial read
Please, refer to this mail (http://grokbase.com/post/2009/07/15/spamassassin-plugin-doesn-t-send-full-mail-to-spamd/JCzoiz1UQ8ZKEInNXZQu0ndhk54) for some (confused) background informations. qpsmtpd spamassassin plugin is here: http://github.com/abh/qpsmtpd/blob/7efee7b1af632fc1caf1a03a00b4d36790f25c1d/plugins/spamassassin This plugin sends the full mail to spamd, but spamd reads only the headers and wait for 300 seconds for the body (already sent by qpsmtpd). spamd strace: read(6, SYMBOLS SPAMC/1.3\r\nUser: qpsmtpd\r\n\r\nX-Envelope-From: perceptua...@studguard.de\r\nReceived: from c2.nethesis.it (HELO pc-federico) (77.238.14.78)\r\nby nethesis.it (qpsmtpd/0.40) with SMTP; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:17:09 +0200\r\nDate: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:00:57 +0700\r\nFrom: \Pat Bright\ forbidding...@sparkus.com\r\nSubject: Get a degree with no problems.\r\nTo: cristian.man...@nethesis.it\r\nMessage-ID: 000d01ca047a$bf729840$6400a...@forbiddingsz3\r\nMIME-Version: 1.0\r\nX-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049\r\nX-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000\r\nContent-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=original\r\nContent-transfer-encoding: 7bit\r\nX-Priority: 3\r\nX-MSMail-priority: Normal\r\n\r\n, 4096) = 733 SA 3.2.5 on Centos 4.6, perl 5.8.5. If I shorten the first line of the body, spamd reads the whole mail (see mail referenced at the beginning for a strace). Here is also a gdb backtrace of spamd waiting in read(): #0 0x009d17a2 in _dl_sysinfo_int80 () from /lib/ld-linux.so.2 #1 0x00cff673 in __read_nocancel () from /lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 #2 0x00cbb09f in PerlIOUnix_read () from /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi/CORE/libperl.so #3 0x00cba8b1 in Perl_PerlIO_read () from /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi/CORE/libperl.so #4 0x00cbc439 in PerlIOBuf_fill () from /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi/CORE/libperl.so #5 0x00cb9a43 in Perl_PerlIO_fill () from /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi/CORE/libperl.so #6 0x00cba803 in PerlIOBase_read () from /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi/CORE/libperl.so #7 0x00cbc513 in PerlIOBuf_read () from /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi/CORE/libperl.so #8 0x00cba8b1 in Perl_PerlIO_read () from /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi/CORE/libperl.so #9 0x00cbdb14 in PerlIO_getc () from /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi/CORE/libperl.so #10 0x00c64e6b in Perl_sv_gets () from /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi/CORE/libperl.so #11 0x00c48aa4 in Perl_do_readline () from /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi/CORE/libperl.so #12 0x00c49877 in Perl_pp_readline () from /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi/CORE/libperl.so #13 0x00c3016d in Perl_runops_debug () from /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi/CORE/libperl.so #14 0x00be1c91 in perl_run () from /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi/CORE/libperl.so #15 0x080493b2 in main () I'm looking for a way to isolate the source of the problem: perl, a perl module, spamd, spamassassin, what else? Thanks. -- Ciao, Filippo
Re: Opt In Spam
On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 03:25 -0700, twofers wrote: Neil Rocks ! Thanks Neil. Wes --- On Thu, 7/16/09, Neil Schwartzman neil.schwartz...@returnpath.net wrote: From: Neil Schwartzman neil.schwartz...@returnpath.net Subject: Re: Opt In Spam To: twofers twof...@yahoo.com, Spamassassin users@spamassassin.apache.org Date: Thursday, July 16, 2009, 1:29 PM FOLLOW-UP: A process was hung on one of the 20 hives serving the whitelists and reported this IP as being listed. We've restarted the process and it is no longer reporting incorrectly. On 16/07/09 8:05 AM, Neil Schwartzman neil.schwartz...@returnpath.net wrote: 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 -- Neil Schwartzman Director, Certification Security Standards Return Path Inc. 0142002038 I have (as usual) a different view. Being told how wonderful they were I thought it would be a blast to opt-in, then opt out again. On opting out I found I was mailed again by RP. So I blocked the range. They found another range and spammed me, I blocked it again. Tonight, they have done it again - I guess this is another 'fault with a hive serving the whitelists' or similar b/s. Opt out is opt out. It means I don't want you to keep finding new ranges to spam me about your services; From: Ryan Osborne ryan.osbo...@returnpath.net To: @buzzhost.co.uk Subject: Are you getting your email to the Inbox? Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:06:02 -0400 (20:06 BST) Mailer: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 I am reaching out from Return Path regarding your inquiry during our Lunch and Learn. We focus on helping marketers like you increase email response and revenue by maximizing your email delivery rates and optimizing your email performance. On average, 20% of permission email is blocked or filtered by ISPs. ISPs like Hotmail and Yahoo! look at several factors in your sending history (or reputation) to determine legitimate mail from spam, but unfortunately one out of five times they get it wrong. We at Return Path can help you build a stellar sending reputation so that ISPs don’t mistake your messages for spam and instead, fast track your email to the inbox. Once you’re IN, we’ll help ensure your strategy is aligned with subscriber interest so that you can maintain high deliverability rates and drive more response and revenue to your program. Our industry leading monitoring tools and services are used by companies of all shapes and sizes including Polo Ralph Lauren, Software AG, Fidelity Investments, eBay, Coldwater Creek, Overstock.com, REI, Match.com, E-Harmony, Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace, plus 2000 more! You can read our case studies on our website. I welcome the opportunity to talk with you to jointly determine which Return Path solutions will drive the strongest ROI across your email programs. When would be the best time to set up the meeting to review your delivery needs? Let me know what time works best for you. I look forward to speaking with you soon. Best Regards, p.s. If you are new to deliverability and want to learn more before we chat, you can register for our Lunch Learn Webinar: Are My Emails Getting Blocked? Click here to choose the date and time that works for you. Thank you, Ryan Osborne New Business Development Return Path - Increasing Email Reach and Response 8001 Arista Place Suite 300 Broomfield, CO 80021 303-999-3121 (office) 303-496-1283 (fax)
Re: Opt In Spam
On 17/07/09 3:32 PM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote: I have (as usual) a different view. Being told how wonderful they were I thought it would be a blast to opt-in, then opt out again. On opting out I found I was mailed again by RP. So I blocked the range. They found another range and spammed me, I blocked it again. Tonight, they have done it again - I guess this is another 'fault with a hive serving the whitelists' or similar b/s. Opt out is opt out. It means I don't want you to keep finding new ranges to spam me about your services; From: Ryan Osborne ryan.osbo...@returnpath.net To: @buzzhost.co.uk Subject: Are you getting your email to the Inbox? Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:06:02 -0400 (20:06 BST) Mailer: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 I¹m not certain who told you were here at Return Path are wonderful, but I do appreciate their input. Now, please don¹t be silly Richard. Your assertion that we encountered a block and then switched to a new IP netblock is preposterous. We have several ranges and mail streams. You opted in and then opted out. OK, in what timeframe? Minutes? Hours? The proscribed 10-day CANSPAM limit? A couple of months? I will ensure you are added to our suppression list and unsubbed from all lists, immediately. If our processes are broken, we want to know; I¹ve BCCed our CPO in on this. Thanks for the heads up. -- Neil Schwartzman Director, Certification Security Standards Return Path Inc. 0142002038
Re: Return Path Safe whitelist UPDATE [was: Opt In Spam]
LuKreme wrote: In my mailspool they are a spam indicator and I have them scored as such: score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI 1.0 score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI 1.5 It's very simple, Habeas headers are a fairly strong indicator of spam in my mail spool. I search all the mail for habeas headers and it shows up about 90% in spam and 10% in ham. I score it thus. To be perfectly fair, I SHOULD score SOI at about 3.0 based on my mailspool. I don't get why you'd search for spammers including headers that have not been in actual use for many years and conflate those results with a DNS whitelist that is currently being maintained. HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI SOI have nothing to do with Habeas headers in an email. The two are entirely distinct and (almost certainly) bear no correlation with each other since I'd be shocked if anyone on either of those lists included the headers. Derek
Re: Opt In Spam
On 17/07/09 4:03 PM, Neil Schwartzman neil.schwartz...@returnpath.net wrote: Your assertion that we encountered a block and then switched to a new IP netblock is preposterous. We have several ranges and mail streams. You opted in and then opted out. OK, in what timeframe? Minutes? Hours? The proscribed 10-day CANSPAM limit? A couple of months? I will ensure you are added to our suppression list and unsubbed from all lists, immediately. If our processes are broken, we want to know; I¹ve BCCed our CPO in on this. Richard, I inquired internally, and here is what we understand to have happened. You signed up for a Lunch and Learn. You were mailed the information in that regard. Apparently you were flagged in our systems as having attended the event. You also indicated you wanted a demo of our tools during your sign-up. A sales person, Ryan, followed up on the lead with a 1-to-1 email. He also tried to call the apparently erroneous telephone number you entered in the form. We have verified the unsubscribe and suppressed your address. Let us know if there is anything else we can do to help. Thanks again for bringing this to all our attention. -- Neil Schwartzman Director, Certification Security Standards Return Path Inc. 0142002038
Re: Opt In Spam
On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 14:41 -0600, Neil Schwartzman wrote: On 17/07/09 4:03 PM, Neil Schwartzman neil.schwartz...@returnpath.net wrote: Your assertion that we encountered a block and then switched to a new IP netblock is preposterous. We have several ranges and mail streams. You opted in and then opted out. OK, in what timeframe? Minutes? Hours? The proscribed 10-day CANSPAM limit? A couple of months? I will ensure you are added to our suppression list and unsubbed from all lists, immediately. If our processes are broken, we want to know; I¹ve BCCed our CPO in on this. Richard, I inquired internally, and here is what we understand to have happened. You signed up for a Lunch and Learn. You were mailed the information in that regard. Apparently you were flagged in our systems as having attended the event. I hate to say this, but if that's what you understand to have happened you have some serious issues with data management. Here is what happened. Injected an address into your web form, injected a dead phone number. Never confirmed opt in, when mail came clicked 'unsubscribe' You also indicated you wanted a demo of our tools during your sign-up. A sales person, Ryan, followed up on the lead with a 1-to-1 email. He also tried to call the apparently erroneous telephone number you entered in the form. So, not only have you abused the unsubscribe, you tried to call the number too. Gee, you are very determined spammers dude. We have verified the unsubscribe and suppressed your address. Let us know if there is anything else we can do to help. Can you supply me with all the address ranges you have so I can add manual blocks for them. Thanks. Thanks again for bringing this to all our attention.
