On 8/13/2014 12:24 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Both of those are recent, I believe and both have reasons to
blacklist. Reporting here is fine. Joe will look at moving them to our
marketing list but in the end you might have to consider a custom
score because we consider places with convicted spammers as suitable
for listing even if there is collateral damage. Especially if they are
in the bulk mailing business.
Regards,
KAM
David B Funk <dbf...@engineering.uiowa.edu> wrote:
We're seeing FPs on legitimate messages caused by KAM_BODY_URIBL_PCCC.
It is firing on URLs from MSPs that (altho they may have some questionable
clients) have legimate customers. EG: mandrillapp-dot-com and
streamsend-dot-com
I'm a bit suprised that this rule would have a one-shot-kill score
of 5.0 (particularly in light of the FP potential).
Who should I report this stuff to?
Both are moved to our marketing blacklist. FYI, the samples we used as
evidence to blacklist went to a feedback@ address and an address that we
know never consented to receive that email.
