constantcontact.com

I'm probably missing something here - but Constant Contact (who we block
by IP) have been a nagging source of spam for us. I'm just wondering why
25_uribl.cf has this line in it:

## DOMAINS TO SKIP (KNOWN GOOD)

# Don't bother looking for example domains as per RFC 2606.
uridnsbl_skip_domain example.com example.net example.org

......
uridnsbl_skip_domain constantcontact.com corporate-ir.net cox.net cs.com

Is this a uri that is really suitable for white listing ?

[Aaron Wolfe]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 2:39 AM,
richard@...<richard@...> wrote:
> I'm probably missing something here - but Constant Contact (who we block
> by IP) have been a nagging source of spam for us. I'm just wondering why

Could you share your IP list?  I'd like to block these clowns too (and
I'm lazy).

> 25_uribl.cf has this line in it:
>
> ## DOMAINS TO SKIP (KNOWN GOOD)
>
> # Don't bother looking for example domains as per RFC 2606.
> uridnsbl_skip_domain example.com example.net example.org
>
> ......
> uridnsbl_skip_domain constantcontact.com corporate-ir.net cox.net cs.com
>
> Is this a uri that is really suitable for white listing ?
>
>
>

On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 03:50 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 2:39 AM,
> richard@...<richard@...> wrote:
> > I'm probably missing something here - but Constant Contact (who we block
> > by IP) have been a nagging source of spam for us. I'm just wondering why
>
> Could you share your IP list?  I'd like to block these clowns too (and
> I'm lazy).
>
>
> > 25_uribl.cf has this line in it:
> >
> > ## DOMAINS TO SKIP (KNOWN GOOD)
> >
> > # Don't bother looking for example domains as per RFC 2606.
> > uridnsbl_skip_domain example.com example.net example.org
> >
> > ......
> > uridnsbl_skip_domain constantcontact.com corporate-ir.net cox.net cs.com
> >
> > Is this a uri that is really suitable for white listing ?
> >
> >
> >

The biggest offenders for me fall in these ranges;

63.251.135.64 - 63.251.135.127
66.151.234.144 - 66.151.234.159
208.75.120.0 - 208.75.123.255

Constant contact will tell you they are opt-in. That is B/S.
The are using a honeypot address used only in usenet post from around 2
years ago. It is always bounced with a 550, but still they keep
knocking.

[Mike Cardwell-16]

richard@... wrote:

> I'm probably missing something here - but Constant Contact (who we block
> by IP) have been a nagging source of spam for us. I'm just wondering why
> 25_uribl.cf has this line in it:
>
> ## DOMAINS TO SKIP (KNOWN GOOD)
>
> # Don't bother looking for example domains as per RFC 2606.
> uridnsbl_skip_domain example.com example.net example.org
>
> ......
> uridnsbl_skip_domain constantcontact.com corporate-ir.net cox.net cs.com
>
> Is this a uri that is really suitable for white listing ?

A set of perl modules has been uploaded to cpan today for talking to the
ConstantContact API:

http://search.cpan.org/~arich/Email-ConstantContact-0.02/lib/Email/ConstantContact.pm

I just thought it was a weird coincidence, seeing as I'd never heared of
them before today.

--
Mike Cardwell - IT Consultant and LAMP developer
Cardwell IT Ltd. (UK Reg'd Company #06920226) http://cardwellit.com/

[nick-14]

richard@... ha scritto:

On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 03:50 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
  

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 2:39 AM,
richard@...richard@... wrote:
    

I'm probably missing something here - but Constant Contact (who we block
by IP) have been a nagging source of spam for us. I'm just wondering why
      

Could you share your IP list?  I'd like to block these clowns too (and
I'm lazy).


    

25_uribl.cf has this line in it:

## DOMAINS TO SKIP (KNOWN GOOD)

# Don't bother looking for example domains as per RFC 2606.
uridnsbl_skip_domain example.com example.net example.org

......
uridnsbl_skip_domain constantcontact.com corporate-ir.net cox.net cs.com

Is this a uri that is really suitable for white listing ?



      

The biggest offenders for me fall in these ranges;

63.251.135.64 - 63.251.135.127
66.151.234.144 - 66.151.234.159
208.75.120.0 - 208.75.123.255

Constant contact will tell you they are opt-in. That is B/S.
The are using a honeypot address used only in usenet post from around 2
years ago. It is always bounced with a 550, but still they keep
knocking.
  

Well, it certainly is constant contact...

[Justin Mason]

I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
Are you reporting these spams to them?

--j.

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 09:55, Mike
Cardwell<spamassassin-users@...> wrote:

> richard@... wrote:
>
>> I'm probably missing something here - but Constant Contact (who we block
>> by IP) have been a nagging source of spam for us. I'm just wondering why
>> 25_uribl.cf has this line in it:
>>
>> ## DOMAINS TO SKIP (KNOWN GOOD)
>>
>> # Don't bother looking for example domains as per RFC 2606.
>> uridnsbl_skip_domain example.com example.net example.org
>>
>> ......
>> uridnsbl_skip_domain constantcontact.com corporate-ir.net cox.net cs.com
>>
>> Is this a uri that is really suitable for white listing ?
>
> A set of perl modules has been uploaded to cpan today for talking to the
> ConstantContact API:
>
> http://search.cpan.org/~arich/Email-ConstantContact-0.02/lib/Email/ConstantContact.pm
>
> I just thought it was a weird coincidence, seeing as I'd never heared of
> them before today.
>
> --
> Mike Cardwell - IT Consultant and LAMP developer
> Cardwell IT Ltd. (UK Reg'd Company #06920226) http://cardwellit.com/
>
>

On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:06 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
> Are you reporting these spams to them?
>
Yes - but you would thing a log full of 550's may be a clue.

What concerns me is SpamAssassin effectively white listing spammers.
White listing should be a user option - not something added in a
nefarious manner. At least it is clear to see with Spamassassin which is
a plus - but I cannot pretend that I am not disappointed to find a
whitelisted 'spammer net' in the core rules. I'm wondering why (other
than MONEY) it would have ended up in there?

[Aaron Wolfe]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Justin Mason<jm@...> wrote:
> I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
> Are you reporting these spams to them?
>
> --j.
>

From what I've seen, most of the traffic from them probably doesn't
qualify as spam by the common definition.  It is, however, stuff that
nobody here wants.  I'm surprised SA is giving them a pass, but there
have been other strange things that got a free ride through SA in the
past, like Habeas certified junk.

> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 09:55, Mike
> Cardwell<spamassassin-users@...> wrote:
>> richard@... wrote:
>>
>>> I'm probably missing something here - but Constant Contact (who we block
>>> by IP) have been a nagging source of spam for us. I'm just wondering why
>>> 25_uribl.cf has this line in it:
>>>
>>> ## DOMAINS TO SKIP (KNOWN GOOD)
>>>
>>> # Don't bother looking for example domains as per RFC 2606.
>>> uridnsbl_skip_domain example.com example.net example.org
>>>
>>> ......
>>> uridnsbl_skip_domain constantcontact.com corporate-ir.net cox.net cs.com
>>>
>>> Is this a uri that is really suitable for white listing ?
>>
>> A set of perl modules has been uploaded to cpan today for talking to the
>> ConstantContact API:
>>
>> http://search.cpan.org/~arich/Email-ConstantContact-0.02/lib/Email/ConstantContact.pm
>>
>> I just thought it was a weird coincidence, seeing as I'd never heared of
>> them before today.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Cardwell - IT Consultant and LAMP developer
>> Cardwell IT Ltd. (UK Reg'd Company #06920226) http://cardwellit.com/
>>
>>
>

On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 05:16 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Justin Mason<jm@...> wrote:
> > I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
> > Are you reporting these spams to them?
> >
> > --j.
> >
>
> >From what I've seen, most of the traffic from them probably doesn't
> qualify as spam by the common definition.  It is, however, stuff that
> nobody here wants.  I'm surprised SA is giving them a pass, but there
> have been other strange things that got a free ride through SA in the
> past, like Habeas certified junk.
>
>
> > On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 09:55, Mike
> > Cardwell<spamassassin-users@...> wrote:
> >> richard@... wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm probably missing something here - but Constant Contact (who we block
> >>> by IP) have been a nagging source of spam for us. I'm just wondering why
> >>> 25_uribl.cf has this line in it:
> >>>
> >>> ## DOMAINS TO SKIP (KNOWN GOOD)
> >>>
> >>> # Don't bother looking for example domains as per RFC 2606.
> >>> uridnsbl_skip_domain example.com example.net example.org
> >>>
> >>> ......
> >>> uridnsbl_skip_domain constantcontact.com corporate-ir.net cox.net cs.com
> >>>
> >>> Is this a uri that is really suitable for white listing ?
> >>
> >> A set of perl modules has been uploaded to cpan today for talking to the
> >> ConstantContact API:
> >>
> >> http://search.cpan.org/~arich/Email-ConstantContact-0.02/lib/Email/ConstantContact.pm
> >>
> >> I just thought it was a weird coincidence, seeing as I'd never heared of
> >> them before today.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mike Cardwell - IT Consultant and LAMP developer
> >> Cardwell IT Ltd. (UK Reg'd Company #06920226) http://cardwellit.com/
> >>
> >>
> >

On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 05:16 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:

> >From what I've seen, most of the traffic from them probably doesn't
> qualify as spam by the common definition.  It is, however, stuff that
> nobody here wants.

I think we are all to generous in what we consider to be 'spam' -v-
'ham'.

If it has come from any form of 'marketing' or 'communication' company
then clearly it is bulk, most likely it is sales based, and almost
certainly it is unsolicited. That makes it spam to me.

Coming from Barracuda (the original 'pay to spam' company) I am always
suspicious of the motives of any spam-net appearing in a white list.
Very suspicious indeed. If you can see it in the core rules, are any
other rules weighted in the favour of people like Constant Contact?

I've opened up the RBL listing I have for them - lets see how much of it
passes through Spamassassin and what score it gets :-)

[Yet Another Ninja]

On 7/3/2009 11:14 AM, richard@... wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:06 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
>> I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
>> Are you reporting these spams to them?
>>
> Yes - but you would thing a log full of 550's may be a clue.
>
> What concerns me is SpamAssassin effectively white listing spammers.
> White listing should be a user option - not something added in a
> nefarious manner. At least it is clear to see with Spamassassin which is
> a plus - but I cannot pretend that I am not disappointed to find a
> whitelisted 'spammer net' in the core rules. I'm wondering why (other
> than MONEY) it would have ended up in there?

this has a historical reasons and its not about "whitelisting spammers"

Many moons ago, when SA started doing URI lookup with the SpamcopURI
plugin, there was only one URI BL: SURBL and to spare it from
unnecessary queries, the skip list was implemented avoid the extar load
and a number of ESPs which back then were considered to never send
UBE/UCE were added.
Times have changed and there's option regarding URI lookups, in public
and private BLs. Also, URI Bls can handle way more traffic than they
could 6 or 7 years back.

There have been numerous requests to get some of these skip entries
removed but non was honoured.

The bottom line is that its trivial and cheaper to write a static URI
rule to tag a URL (if you really need to) and which doesn't affect the
globe, than hammering the BLs with zillion of extra queries.

SA is conservative and caters to a VERY wide user base, with VERY
different understanding what is UBE/UCE so while everyone saves reources
on useless queries, you still havea  way to score constantcontact with
100 if its your choice.


axb

On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 12:06 +0200, Yet Another Ninja wrote:

> On 7/3/2009 11:14 AM, richard@... wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:06 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> >> I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
> >> Are you reporting these spams to them?
> >>
> > Yes - but you would thing a log full of 550's may be a clue.
> >
> > What concerns me is SpamAssassin effectively white listing spammers.
> > White listing should be a user option - not something added in a
> > nefarious manner. At least it is clear to see with Spamassassin which is
> > a plus - but I cannot pretend that I am not disappointed to find a
> > whitelisted 'spammer net' in the core rules. I'm wondering why (other
> > than MONEY) it would have ended up in there?
>
> this has a historical reasons and its not about "whitelisting spammers"
>
> Many moons ago, when SA started doing URI lookup with the SpamcopURI
> plugin, there was only one URI BL: SURBL and to spare it from
> unnecessary queries, the skip list was implemented avoid the extar load
> and a number of ESPs which back then were considered to never send
> UBE/UCE were added.
> Times have changed and there's option regarding URI lookups, in public
> and private BLs. Also, URI Bls can handle way more traffic than they
> could 6 or 7 years back.
>
> There have been numerous requests to get some of these skip entries
> removed but non was honoured.
>
> The bottom line is that its trivial and cheaper to write a static URI
> rule to tag a URL (if you really need to) and which doesn't affect the
> globe, than hammering the BLs with zillion of extra queries.
>
> SA is conservative and caters to a VERY wide user base, with VERY
> different understanding what is UBE/UCE so while everyone saves reources
> on useless queries, you still havea  way to score constantcontact with
> 100 if its your choice.
>
>
> axb

Should that be Hi$torical Rea$ons ? ;-) There is no current excuse and
this kind of alleged legacy rubbish needs to be pulled out.

As it stands the is simply white listing a bulker. A spam filter that
white lists a spammer - how bizarre ! I'm cynical. The only logical
reason I can see for anything of this nature is money changing hands.

[Aaron Wolfe]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:11 AM,
richard@...<richard@...> wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 12:06 +0200, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
>> On 7/3/2009 11:14 AM, richard@... wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:06 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
>> >> I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
>> >> Are you reporting these spams to them?
>> >>
>> > Yes - but you would thing a log full of 550's may be a clue.
>> >
>> > What concerns me is SpamAssassin effectively white listing spammers.
>> > White listing should be a user option - not something added in a
>> > nefarious manner. At least it is clear to see with Spamassassin which is
>> > a plus - but I cannot pretend that I am not disappointed to find a
>> > whitelisted 'spammer net' in the core rules. I'm wondering why (other
>> > than MONEY) it would have ended up in there?
>>
>> this has a historical reasons and its not about "whitelisting spammers"
>>
>> Many moons ago, when SA started doing URI lookup with the SpamcopURI
>> plugin, there was only one URI BL: SURBL and to spare it from
>> unnecessary queries, the skip list was implemented avoid the extar load
>> and a number of ESPs which back then were considered to never send
>> UBE/UCE were added.
>> Times have changed and there's option regarding URI lookups, in public
>> and private BLs. Also, URI Bls can handle way more traffic than they
>> could 6 or 7 years back.
>>
>> There have been numerous requests to get some of these skip entries
>> removed but non was honoured.
>>
>> The bottom line is that its trivial and cheaper to write a static URI
>> rule to tag a URL (if you really need to) and which doesn't affect the
>> globe, than hammering the BLs with zillion of extra queries.
>>
>> SA is conservative and caters to a VERY wide user base, with VERY
>> different understanding what is UBE/UCE so while everyone saves reources
>> on useless queries, you still havea  way to score constantcontact with
>> 100 if its your choice.
>>
>>
>> axb
> Should that be Hi$torical Rea$ons ? ;-) There is no current excuse and
> this kind of alleged legacy rubbish needs to be pulled out.
>
> As it stands the is simply white listing a bulker. A spam filter that
> white lists a spammer - how bizarre ! I'm cynical. The only logical
> reason I can see for anything of this nature is money changing hands.
>
>

I think the point was that the URIBL's are never going to be listing
these domains, so why waste time looking them up, right or wrong.
It's not really an endorsement by SA, just a way to save resources
since this check is not going to return results anyway.  Don't know if
this theory is correct, but if this is the only "special treatment"
given to constant contact, then I don't really think there is any
conspiracy here.  Why do a check that isn't going to work anyway?
Hopefully the other rules will judge the messages on their own merit,
they do seem to catch *some* of the junk coming out of c.c.

[Justin Mason]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 10:14,
richard@...<richard@...> wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:06 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
>> I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
>> Are you reporting these spams to them?
>>
> Yes - but you would thing a log full of 550's may be a clue.
>
> What concerns me is SpamAssassin effectively white listing spammers.
> White listing should be a user option - not something added in a
> nefarious manner. At least it is clear to see with Spamassassin which is
> a plus - but I cannot pretend that I am not disappointed to find a
> whitelisted 'spammer net' in the core rules.

https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5905 has some
information on the background; we asked SURBL for their top queried
domains that they considered nonspam, and it was in that list.  SURBL
have always been scrupulous in their operations and listing criteria
fwiw.

Going by bug 5905 though, and this report, we should probably remove
it from the whitelist.

>  I'm wondering why (other
> than MONEY) it would have ended up in there?

Hope that answers your question.  note that it didn't involve "MONEY".
 btw silly unfounded accusations mean that it's less likely you'll get
anyone to answer your mail, so please don't do that.

--j.

[Yet Another Ninja]

On 7/3/2009 12:11 PM, richard@... wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 12:06 +0200, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
>> On 7/3/2009 11:14 AM, richard@... wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:06 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
>>>> I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
>>>> Are you reporting these spams to them?
>>>>
>>> Yes - but you would thing a log full of 550's may be a clue.
>>>
>>> What concerns me is SpamAssassin effectively white listing spammers.
>>> White listing should be a user option - not something added in a
>>> nefarious manner. At least it is clear to see with Spamassassin which is
>>> a plus - but I cannot pretend that I am not disappointed to find a
>>> whitelisted 'spammer net' in the core rules. I'm wondering why (other
>>> than MONEY) it would have ended up in there?
>> this has a historical reasons and its not about "whitelisting spammers"
>>
>> Many moons ago, when SA started doing URI lookup with the SpamcopURI
>> plugin, there was only one URI BL: SURBL and to spare it from
>> unnecessary queries, the skip list was implemented avoid the extar load
>> and a number of ESPs which back then were considered to never send
>> UBE/UCE were added.
>> Times have changed and there's option regarding URI lookups, in public
>> and private BLs. Also, URI Bls can handle way more traffic than they
>> could 6 or 7 years back.
>>
>> There have been numerous requests to get some of these skip entries
>> removed but non was honoured.
>>
>> The bottom line is that its trivial and cheaper to write a static URI
>> rule to tag a URL (if you really need to) and which doesn't affect the
>> globe, than hammering the BLs with zillion of extra queries.
>>
>> SA is conservative and caters to a VERY wide user base, with VERY
>> different understanding what is UBE/UCE so while everyone saves reources
>> on useless queries, you still havea  way to score constantcontact with
>> 100 if its your choice.
>>
>>
>> axb
> Should that be Hi$torical Rea$ons ? ;-) There is no current excuse and
> this kind of alleged legacy rubbish needs to be pulled out.
>
> As it stands the is simply white listing a bulker. A spam filter that
> white lists a spammer - how bizarre ! I'm cynical. The only logical
> reason I can see for anything of this nature is money changing hands.

and if it were as you say, then you should make a better offer ;-)

you get SA in source code - nobody stops you from adapting for to your
need.

.....and if you want to be real efficient, block the HELO or IPs at SMTP
level.

[Randal, Phil]

Aaron Wolfe wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Justin Mason<jm@...> wrote:
>> I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
>> Are you reporting these spams to them?
>>
>> --j.
>>
>
> From what I've seen, most of the traffic from them probably doesn't
> qualify as spam by the common definition.  It is, however, stuff that
> nobody here wants.  I'm surprised SA is giving them a pass, but there
> have been other strange things that got a free ride through SA in the
> past, like Habeas certified junk.    

Most of the stuff we see here which comes via Constant Contact does come
under the UCE definition, but not all.

From http://www.constantcontact.com/pricing/index.jsp , they say:

  "Monthly fee is based on the number of contacts in your email list"

There's an immediate conflict of interest - if they want to keep their
income high, they're going to encourage customers with large mailing
lists, regardless of the sources of those lists.

They do, however, encourage "permission-based email lists" (
http://www.constantcontact.com/email-marketing/email-list-management/bui
ld-list.jsp ) - whether this meets double-opt-in criteria or not I
cannot tell.

+1 for not giving them preferential treatment.

Cheers,

Phil
--
Phil Randal | Networks Engineer
Herefordshire Council | Deputy Chief Executive's Office | I.C.T.
Services Division Thorn Office Centre, Rotherwas, Hereford, HR2 6JT
Tel: [phone]
email: prandal@...

Any opinion expressed in this e-mail or any attached files are those of
the individual and not necessarily those of Herefordshire Council.

This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the use of the addressee. This communication may contain material
protected by law from being passed on. If you are not the intended
recipient and have received this e-mail in error, you are advised that
any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error
please contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of it.

[Mike Cardwell-16]

Aaron Wolfe wrote:

> I think the point was that the URIBL's are never going to be listing
> these domains, so why waste time looking them up

mike@haven:~$ host constantcontact.com.multi.uribl.com
constantcontact.com.multi.uribl.com     A       127.0.0.4
mike@haven:~$

--
Mike Cardwell - IT Consultant and LAMP developer
Cardwell IT Ltd. (UK Reg'd Company #06920226) http://cardwellit.com/

On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 11:19 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 10:14,
> richard@...<richard@...> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:06 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> >> I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
> >> Are you reporting these spams to them?
> >>
> > Yes - but you would thing a log full of 550's may be a clue.
> >
> > What concerns me is SpamAssassin effectively white listing spammers.
> > White listing should be a user option - not something added in a
> > nefarious manner. At least it is clear to see with Spamassassin which is
> > a plus - but I cannot pretend that I am not disappointed to find a
> > whitelisted 'spammer net' in the core rules.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5905 has some
> information on the background; we asked SURBL for their top queried
> domains that they considered nonspam, and it was in that list.  SURBL
> have always been scrupulous in their operations and listing criteria
> fwiw.
>
> Going by bug 5905 though, and this report, we should probably remove
> it from the whitelist.
>
> >  I'm wondering why (other
> > than MONEY) it would have ended up in there?
>
> Hope that answers your question.  note that it didn't involve "MONEY".
>  btw silly unfounded accusations mean that it's less likely you'll get
> anyone to answer your mail, so please don't do that.

Like I say - I come from a background where money changes hands to spam,
this makes me cynical. My apologies if that offends, but it tends to be
disappointingly accurate on the majority of occasions.
>
> --j.

[Yet Another Ninja]

On 7/3/2009 12:19 PM, Justin Mason wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 10:14,
> richard@...<richard@...> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:06 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
>>> I've heard that they are diligent about terminating abusive clients.
>>> Are you reporting these spams to them?
>>>
>> Yes - but you would thing a log full of 550's may be a clue.
>>
>> What concerns me is SpamAssassin effectively white listing spammers.
>> White listing should be a user option - not something added in a
>> nefarious manner. At least it is clear to see with Spamassassin which is
>> a plus - but I cannot pretend that I am not disappointed to find a
>> whitelisted 'spammer net' in the core rules.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5905 has some
> information on the background; we asked SURBL for their top queried
> domains that they considered nonspam, and it was in that list.  SURBL
> have always been scrupulous in their operations and listing criteria
> fwiw.
>
> Going by bug 5905 though, and this report, we should probably remove
> it from the whitelist.

As you can see, I was the one who started that bug .-)

On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 11:26 +0100, Mike Cardwell wrote:
> Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>
> > I think the point was that the URIBL's are never going to be listing
> > these domains, so why waste time looking them up
>
> mike@haven:~$ host constantcontact.com.multi.uribl.com
> constantcontact.com.multi.uribl.com     A       127.0.0.4
> mike@haven:~$
>
Oh Dear - that kind of rains on the parade of the 'legacy' argument and
puts the ball into the SA court.

I also get that;

;; ANSWER SECTION:
constantcontact.com.multi.uribl.com. 1800 IN A 127.0.0.4

Seems like the cynical who make 'silly assumptions' may not be as silly
as we first thought. There name came up when I was at Barracuda. AFAIR
they were white listed on the Barracuda White List. No amount of
customer complaints seemed to change that either....