On 10/7/2013 10:37 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 10/7/2013 7:42 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
This is harming more then it does good. But its your list so your
rules ;) I would not want to use it to filter my mails with it but hey
Since this is in its early development, it is probably too early to
On 10/7/2013 7:53 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
If, on inspection, there is any reliable way to distinguish spam from
ham in the stream coming from cvent, you could drop the RBL score down
a lot (0.01 ?) and write a meta that blocks just the spam.
Perhaps but I do think there is some measure of a
On 10/7/2013 7:38 PM, Alex wrote:
How would another RBL handle a company that I have personally received
evidence of spamming even if it causes FPs?
Apparently none of the other RBLs consider it spam.
Well then the RBL I'm envisioning might be different. But my goal is to
get framework done
On 10/7/2013 7:42 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Apparently other RBL's care more about colleteral damage. I would not
list this. You would not list microsoft.com neither if you accidently
get a spam that you feel itnt appropriate. This is harming more then
it does good. But its your list so
On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 13:18 -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 10/7/2013 7:53 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
If, on inspection, there is any reliable way to distinguish spam from
ham in the stream coming from cvent, you could drop the RBL score down
a lot (0.01 ?) and write a meta that blocks
On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 19:31:41 +0100
Martin Gregorie mar...@gregorie.org wrote:
My suggestion was meant for the OP rather than generally was made on
the assumption that cvent was not going to listen to any criticism or
police its subscribers.
Surely a mailing list provider that does not police
Below is a copy of the email from Cvent and my response with some minor
redaction so as to keep who I'm in discussion with private unless they
want to take the discussion public.
regards,
KAM
Sorry for the delay on this response but I wanted to give it some
serious attention especially as
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 19:38:38 -0400
Alex mysqlstud...@gmail.com wrote:
I've asked the list a few times before about similar companies, such
as verticalresponse.com, which are also mass e-marketers, and I doubt
very much whether all recipients have signed up for their
newsletters or webinars.
Hi,
I've asked the list a few times before about similar companies, such
as verticalresponse.com, which are also mass e-marketers, and I doubt
very much whether all recipients have signed up for their
newsletters or webinars.
My preference is to list quasi-legitimate spammers as spammers or
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,
Hi Kevin,
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
On 10/7/2013 6:18 PM, Alex wrote:
How about just cvent.com? I've uploaded the headers from one FP here:
http://pastebin.com/UDuDcp4F
How would another RBL handle a company that I have personally received
evidence of spamming even if it causes FPs?
I personally received the spam from them from
Hi,
How about just cvent.com? I've uploaded the headers from one FP here:
http://pastebin.com/UDuDcp4F
How would another RBL handle a company that I have personally received
evidence of spamming even if it causes FPs?
Apparently none of the other RBLs consider it spam.
I've asked the list
Hai!
How about just cvent.com? I've uploaded the headers from one FP here:
http://pastebin.com/UDuDcp4F
How would another RBL handle a company that I have personally received
evidence of spamming even if it causes FPs?
Apparently none of the other RBLs consider it spam.
Apparently other
On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 19:38 -0400, Alex wrote:
There wasn't really any consensus on the list for this sender either.
I've left them off my blacklist for now, despite seeing messages
pertaining to hair care and gutter cleaning from their customers.
They're also not on any public blocklists.
On 10/7/2013 7:42 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
This is harming more then it does good. But its your list so your
rules ;) I would not want to use it to filter my mails with it but hey
Since this is in its early development, it is probably too early to
judge it too much. But from what I've read
Alex skrev den 2013-10-08 00:18:
http://pastebin.com/UDuDcp4F
in local.cf
def_whitelist_auth *@cvent.com
or in user-prefs whitelist_auth *@cvent.com
in case its ham, just not both
https://dmarcian.com/spf-survey/cvent.com
https://dmarcian.com/dmarc-inspector/cvent.com
Hi guys,
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
