RE: What is up with surbl.org?
> -Original Message- > From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: vrijdag 3 december 2004 7:51 > To: SpamAssassin Users > Subject: Re: What is up with surbl.org? > > >> Perhaps he should. Seriously, I heavily rely on the rating. > >> cloudmark.com data; surbl.org should *never* have been in there. > >> The folks at cloudmark really need to manually inspect their entries; > >> next thing this list has a bad rep too. > > > Hi Mark, > > I've not familiar with Cloudmark. Would you mind contacting them > > for us, with some of the possible explanations why they probably > > have an error, as already mentioned here? > > FWIW I tried to send a note to Vipul. No idea if he will get it. rating.cloudmark.com is a new reputation service. In general, I am quite happy with them. I will contact them, too. > Mark, it could still help if you contact Cloudmark for us, since > you're a customer of theirs and familiar with the issues. FWIW > I can't email you: > > >- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > (reason: 550 5.7.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Cloudmark > Status of MAIL FROM Domain [surbl.org]: Bad) > > > >- Transcript of session follows - > > ... while talking to mail.asarian-host.net.: > >>>> MAIL From:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SIZE=1648 > > <<< 550 5.7.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Cloudmark Status of MAIL > FROM Domain [surbl.org]: Bad 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable That just goes to show never to rely too heavily on a reputation service, no matter how reputable they may be. :) - Mark System Administrator Asarian-host.org --- "If you were supposed to understand it, we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx
Re: What is up with surbl.org?
On Thursday, December 2, 2004, 9:57:28 PM, Jeff Chan wrote: > On Thursday, December 2, 2004, 1:14:33 PM, Mark Mark wrote: >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: donderdag 2 december 2004 21:56 >>> To: 'Mark'; SURBL Discussion list (E-mail) >>> Subject: RE: What is up with surbl.org? >>> >>> > How come surbl.org has a "Bad" status at rating.cloudmark.com? (see >>> > below). This is not good. >>> Perhaps Jeff should contact them with a "What up, dude?" email? >> Perhaps he should. Seriously, I heavily rely on the rating.cloudmark.com >> data; surbl.org should *never* have been in there. The folks at cloudmark >> really need to manually inspect their entries; next thing this list has a >> bad rep too. > Hi Mark, > I've not familiar with Cloudmark. Would you mind contacting them > for us, with some of the possible explanations why they probably > have an error, as already mentioned here? FWIW I tried to send a note to Vipul. No idea if he will get it. Mark, it could still help if you contact Cloudmark for us, since you're a customer of theirs and familiar with the issues. FWIW I can't email you: >- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > (reason: 550 5.7.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Cloudmark Status of MAIL FROM > Domain [surbl.org]: Bad) > >- Transcript of session follows - > ... while talking to mail.asarian-host.net.: >>>> MAIL From:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SIZE=1648 > <<< 550 5.7.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Cloudmark Status of MAIL FROM Domain > [surbl.org]: Bad > 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
Re: What is up with surbl.org?
On Thursday, December 2, 2004, 1:14:33 PM, Mark Mark wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: donderdag 2 december 2004 21:56 >> To: 'Mark'; SURBL Discussion list (E-mail) >> Subject: RE: What is up with surbl.org? >> >> > How come surbl.org has a "Bad" status at rating.cloudmark.com? (see >> > below). This is not good. >> > >> >> Jealousy? :) Maybe they are related to that fifth dentist? >> >> Perhaps Jeff should contact them with a "What up, dude?" email? > Perhaps he should. Seriously, I heavily rely on the rating.cloudmark.com > data; surbl.org should *never* have been in there. The folks at cloudmark > really need to manually inspect their entries; next thing this list has a > bad rep too. > - Mark > System Administrator Asarian-host.org Hi Mark, I've not familiar with Cloudmark. Would you mind contacting them for us, with some of the possible explanations why they probably have an error, as already mentioned here? Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
RE: What is up with surbl.org?
> -Original Message- > From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: donderdag 2 december 2004 21:56 > To: 'Mark'; SURBL Discussion list (E-mail) > Subject: RE: What is up with surbl.org? > > > How come surbl.org has a "Bad" status at rating.cloudmark.com? (see > > below). This is not good. > > > > Jealousy? :) Maybe they are related to that fifth dentist? > > Perhaps Jeff should contact them with a "What up, dude?" email? Perhaps he should. Seriously, I heavily rely on the rating.cloudmark.com data; surbl.org should *never* have been in there. The folks at cloudmark really need to manually inspect their entries; next thing this list has a bad rep too. - Mark System Administrator Asarian-host.org --- "If you were supposed to understand it, we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx
Re: What is up with surbl.org?
At 03:50 PM 12/2/2004, Theo Van Dinter wrote: *** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE *** On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 08:42:34PM +, Mark wrote: > How come surbl.org has a "Bad" status at rating.cloudmark.com? (see > below). This is not good. That's really a question for the Cloudmark people. My guess is that domains that have mailing lists which talk about spam get a bad rating since people still incorrectly scan those lists through anti-spam software. Another guess would be that rating is using data from razor reports. If someone reports a SA tagged message to razor without stripping the tags, the surbl.org domain is going to appear in the message body as a byproduct of the rule descriptions.
Re: What is up with surbl.org?
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 08:42:34PM +, Mark wrote: > How come surbl.org has a "Bad" status at rating.cloudmark.com? (see > below). This is not good. That's really a question for the Cloudmark people. My guess is that domains that have mailing lists which talk about spam get a bad rating since people still incorrectly scan those lists through anti-spam software. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "Meanwhile the US military officials are looking for their next target in the war on terrorism. Today President Bush restated his commitment to the war on terror, saying, "You're either with us, or against us, or, in the case of Saudi Arabia, both.""- Bill Maher pgpij1LtQYgyq.pgp Description: PGP signature
What is up with surbl.org?
How come surbl.org has a "Bad" status at rating.cloudmark.com? (see
below). This is not good.
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx
asarian-host: {root} % dig surbl.org.rating.cloudmark.com txt
; <<>> DiG 8.4 <<>> surbl.org.rating.cloudmark.com txt
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 1760
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 5, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; QUERY SECTION:
;; surbl.org.rating.cloudmark.com, type = TXT, class = IN
;; ANSWER SECTION:
surbl.org.rating.cloudmark.com. 1M IN TXT "Service Policy:
http://rating.cloudmark.com/sidtoc/";
surbl.org.rating.cloudmark.com. 1M IN TXT "Rating: 62"
surbl.org.rating.cloudmark.com. 1M IN TXT "Confidence: 11"
surbl.org.rating.cloudmark.com. 1M IN TXT "Status: Bad"
surbl.org.rating.cloudmark.com. 1M IN TXT "Cloudmark Rating Version: 1.0"
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
rating.cloudmark.com. 9m42s IN NS dignity.cloudmark.com.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
dignity.cloudmark.com. 9m42s IN A 66.151.150.36
;; Total query time: 81 msec
;; FROM: asarian-host.net to SERVER: 127.0.0.1
;; WHEN: Thu Dec 2 21:21:32 2004
;; MSG SIZE sent: 48 rcvd: 296
