constantcontact.com

[John Hardin]

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Randal, Phil wrote:

> 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.

...and regardless of how many of those addresses always get 5xx responses.

If it's that much of an annoyance, set up a tarpit for them. I don't have
any ethical problem doing this for a bulk mailer that repeatedly ignores a
5xx that says "I will never accept any mail from you".

--
  John Hardin KA7OHZ                    http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
  jhardin@...    FALaholic #11174     pgpk -a jhardin@...
  key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   USMC Rules of Gunfighting #6: If you can choose what to bring to a
   gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Tomorrow: the 233rd anniversary of the Declaration of Independence

On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:14 -0700, John Hardin wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Randal, Phil wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> ...and regardless of how many of those addresses always get 5xx responses.
>
> If it's that much of an annoyance, set up a tarpit for them. I don't have
> any ethical problem doing this for a bulk mailer that repeatedly ignores a
> 5xx that says "I will never accept any mail from you".
>

I've just had a look through the Barracuda 'Whitelist' - allow me to
share a small part of it;

consolenergy.com
consolidatedpapers.com
consortaart.com
consortia.org.il
conspiracy-theory.org
constablevillevillage.us
constantcontact.com
constantinevillage.us
constellation.com
constellationenergy.com
constitution.us
constitutionstate.us
constructatlanta.com

Seems white listing constantcontact is the done thing then.

As it's the 4th of July tomorrow (American Independence Day) I'm half
thinking that I should liberate the whitelist and all the Barracuda
'Custom' rules and 'give back to the open source community'. I'll sleep
on it. I'm due a spell in prison. A few more months won't hurt.

[Res-2]

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:

>
> On Fri, July 3, 2009 15:13, richard@... wrote:
>
> folowup:
>
> v=spf1 ip4:62.233.82.168 ip4:82.70.24.238 mx ~all
>
> in dns
>
> v=spf1 ip4:62.233.82.168 ip4:82.70.24.238 mx ~all
> localhost. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"
> mail1.buzzhost.co.uk. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"
> mail2.buzzhost.co.uk. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"
> mail3.buzzhost.co.uk. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"
> smtp.spamsandwich.co.uk. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"
> spam2.spamology.co.uk. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"
>
>
> well its your domain your problem  to add this to dns, not my problem
>

Why are people still using the outdated and no longer recommended
domain TXT method?

The RR type SPF was ratified some time ago. If an OS uses an antiquated
resolver that does not know about the SPF RR, that too is the operators
problem, no one elses.


--
Res

-Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers

On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 07:29 +1000, Res wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> >
> > On Fri, July 3, 2009 15:13, richard@... wrote:
> >
> > folowup:
> >
> > v=spf1 ip4:62.233.82.168 ip4:82.70.24.238 mx ~all
> >
> > in dns
> >
> > v=spf1 ip4:62.233.82.168 ip4:82.70.24.238 mx ~all
> > localhost. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"
> > mail1.buzzhost.co.uk. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"
> > mail2.buzzhost.co.uk. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"
> > mail3.buzzhost.co.uk. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"
> > smtp.spamsandwich.co.uk. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"
> > spam2.spamology.co.uk. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"
> >
> >
> > well its your domain your problem  to add this to dns, not my problem
> >
>
> Why are people still using the outdated and no longer recommended
> domain TXT method?
>
> The RR type SPF was ratified some time ago. If an OS uses an antiquated
> resolver that does not know about the SPF RR, that too is the operators
> problem, no one elses.
>
>

The domain concerned is one of around 800 used to harvest spam. They are
spread across hosts and are predominantly for incoming mail. Some have
'spoof' websites and forums - in fact I think buzzhost has some telecom
wiring stuff thrown together. The non working forums and comments boards
are a great way to harvest information about another kind of spam - web
'forum' spam. You often get to see links posted in forums before they
appear in emails.

This is why I really don't care about the broken DNS. It does not matter
as they are, mostly, not outgoing MX's. Sure - Benny seems to get a
little excited about it - but I'm not really that bothered. Apart from
the SPF there are some other great howlers in there too. Like lowest
priority pointing to localhost - that always makes me giggle when I
think of those 'lowest priority' bots trying to effectively connect to
themselves.

As for the RR for SPF, yep. I'm aware of that too. I have found -
however - that lots of small businesses don't even have SPF let alone
PTR and getting them to use RR TXT for spf is hard enough, let alone RR
SPF. An easy way to fix this is to block everything without a valid SPF
record, but in the real world I don't see lots of mail admins doing it.
As an aside to this my time at Barracuda gave me some concerns about the
DNS load of SPF. Whilst it may be specific to their flaky 'BSMTP' proxy
MTA implementation, activating SPF checks on their units will slowly
kill the unit until it crashes and the mail backs up. Another one of
those Barracuda 'features' that is fine until you try to use it....
(much like outgoing DKIM but don't get me started). So, taking things on
Balance SPF is a great idea - but compliance is patchy. Even Benny's
"You don't have SPF so I'm blocking you" was clearly b/s when I tried it
with other MX's with no SPF. Nothing more than a kiddy rule set-up
FWICS.

Hopefully this answers any questions raised about 'buzzhost'. I can't
see why there is that much interest, but I'm flattered. Benny - if you
want to get in my pants darling, I don't play hard to get. Buy me a
drink and give me a kiss and I'm all yours.

[Tara Natanson]

Hello,

Normally I wouldn't jump in on a technical mailing list such as this,
but I was pointed to the archives by someone on the list and saw that
someone was asking specific questions on how we operate. I hope I can
clear up some stuff and answer any questions.

We are an ESP. We have over 250,000 customers. We cater mostly to
small businesses and non-profits.  The majority of our customers are
businesses or organizations with less than 5 employees who don't have
an IT or a marketing department.  Our product is a do-it yourself type
thing with lots of online help. despite the large numbers we do a lot
to vet our customers. They are required to have permission, but the
real test is how we enforce that.  We do a lot at list upload time
before they ever mail, scanning lists for things that would indicate
it isn't permission based.  We have a large database of spamtraps
(donated mostly by anti-spammers), and we also look for things such as
role addresses.  There is more but I can't give away the whole secret
sauce for obvious reasons. After an automated review there is usually
a "list review" on the phone with a human in our call center.  There
customers are required to explain how they have permission to mail
etc. If someone makes it through that we then rely on spam complaints
after they mail.  We are signed up for all feedbackloops available and
also get plenty of direct abuse@ complaints as well.  We terminate
many customers every day, most of them before they ever mail. Most of
the people who are bumped from our system are not your average
malicous spammers but businesses who were misled, misinformed, or are
just plain lacking in clue. We educate those we can and terminate the
rest.  We do have the occasional outright malicious spammer and we are
constantly tweaking our automated upload checks to improve them.

As for the whitelisting mentioned in this thread, we are aware of it
and in both cases (barracuda and SA skipcheck) we found out after the
fact and I can confirm no money changed hands.  We work closely with
Barracuda when they get spam complaints from their customers regarding
us, the decision to whitelist us was theirs alone but it seems it was
due to user feedback.  When their product would occasionally block our
mail their users would complain much louder.

If anyone has spam from us they'd like our compliance group to look at
I can send it over, please feel free to send it to me and I'll see
what I can share with you about the outcome.  You can always send to
abuse@ but will likely not get anything more than the auto-ack.

I'm sorry for the intrusion on your list and I don't want this to get
too off topic so please feel free to reply to me off list.

Tara Natanson
Constant Contact
Mail Operations
tnatanson@...

On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 21:49 -0400, Tara Natanson wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Normally I wouldn't jump in on a technical mailing list such as this,
> but I was pointed to the archives by someone on the list and saw that
> someone was asking specific questions on how we operate. I hope I can
> clear up some stuff and answer any questions.
>
> We are an ESP. We have over 250,000 customers. We cater mostly to
> small businesses and non-profits.  The majority of our customers are
> businesses or organizations with less than 5 employees who don't have
> an IT or a marketing department.  Our product is a do-it yourself type
> thing with lots of online help. despite the large numbers we do a lot
> to vet our customers. They are required to have permission, but the
> real test is how we enforce that.  We do a lot at list upload time
> before they ever mail, scanning lists for things that would indicate
> it isn't permission based.  We have a large database of spamtraps
> (donated mostly by anti-spammers), and we also look for things such as
> role addresses.  There is more but I can't give away the whole secret
> sauce for obvious reasons. After an automated review there is usually
> a "list review" on the phone with a human in our call center.  There
> customers are required to explain how they have permission to mail
> etc. If someone makes it through that we then rely on spam complaints
> after they mail.  We are signed up for all feedbackloops available and
> also get plenty of direct abuse@ complaints as well.  We terminate
> many customers every day, most of them before they ever mail. Most of
> the people who are bumped from our system are not your average
> malicous spammers but businesses who were misled, misinformed, or are
> just plain lacking in clue. We educate those we can and terminate the
> rest.  We do have the occasional outright malicious spammer and we are
> constantly tweaking our automated upload checks to improve them.
>
> As for the whitelisting mentioned in this thread, we are aware of it
> and in both cases (barracuda and SA skipcheck) we found out after the
> fact and I can confirm no money changed hands.  We work closely with
> Barracuda when they get spam complaints from their customers regarding
> us, the decision to whitelist us was theirs alone but it seems it was
> due to user feedback.  When their product would occasionally block our
> mail their users would complain much louder.
>
> If anyone has spam from us they'd like our compliance group to look at
> I can send it over, please feel free to send it to me and I'll see
> what I can share with you about the outcome.  You can always send to
> abuse@ but will likely not get anything more than the auto-ack.
>
> I'm sorry for the intrusion on your list and I don't want this to get
> too off topic so please feel free to reply to me off list.
>
> Tara Natanson
> Constant Contact
> Mail Operations
> tnatanson@...

Perhaps you can look at your customer;

Received: from ccm01.constantcontact.com ([63.251.135.74]) by
From: GearSourceEurope <info@...>
Reply-To: info@...
Sender: GearSourceEurope <michelle@...>

I've lost count of the times I've been in touch with you over that one
(never to get a resolution)

As for the Barracuda Whitelist. I think Micheal Perone has an interest
in Constant Contact Tara - Or would my information be wrong? Please be
aware that LOTS of internal information regarding Constant Contact -v-
Barracuda is known to me.

Finally - and here is the thing I find a bit odd - if you really are
from Constant Contact would you not be using one of their email
addresses - or at least a server?. After all, as you put it 'We are an
ESP'.

AFAICT Natanson.net has no business relation with Constant Contact.
Forgive my scepticism, but if you say you are representing them, please
post from a place where that can be cited. Interesting to note the
domain you've used is also 'anonymous';


Registrant:
   Domains by Proxy, Inc.
   DomainsByProxy.com
   15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
   Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
   United States

   Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
   Domain Name: NATANSON.NET
      Created on: 16-Aug-02
      Expires on: 15-Aug-13
      Last Updated on: 12-Apr-06

   Administrative Contact:
      Private, Registration  NATANSON.NET@...
      Domains by Proxy, Inc.
      DomainsByProxy.com
      15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
      Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
      United States
      [phone]      Fax -- [phone]

[Tara Natanson-2]

On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 3:05 AM,
richard@...<richard@...> wrote:

> Perhaps you can look at your customer;
>
> Received: from ccm01.constantcontact.com ([63.251.135.74]) by
> From: GearSourceEurope <info@...>
> Reply-To: info@...
> Sender: GearSourceEurope <michelle@...>

I'll let you know what I find.
>
> I've lost count of the times I've been in touch with you over that one
> (never to get a resolution)

Me personally?  Don't think I've seen this one come up before.  If
you've sent it to abuse@, I'll see what they've done with it.

> As for the Barracuda Whitelist. I think Micheal Perone has an interest
> in Constant Contact Tara - Or would my information be wrong? Please be
> aware that LOTS of internal information regarding Constant Contact -v-
> Barracuda is known to me.

I don't know Michael, I usually work with Jann Gobble (formerly Jann
Linder). All I know is what he has told me.  He contacted our support
group a few years back out of the blue because when they blocked us
several of their customers got very upset.  He wanted to work out a
way to keep his customers happy and to deal with any spam complaints
that came in.  he has several direct escalation paths at his disposal
should he get complaints about our mail and he uses them when he needs
to.

> Finally - and here is the thing I find a bit odd - if you really are
> from Constant Contact would you not be using one of their email
> addresses - or at least a server?. After all, as you put it 'We are an
> ESP'.

sorry, I am on several private lists. Lists I have been on for 10
years through a few different employers.  If I signed up for those
lists with my @constantcontact.com address my employer would own that
mail.  I don't really think they'd read my mail, but I'm still not
comfortable with that so I sign up for all lists (even the public ones
like this) with my own personal domain.  Its just my family domain,
the website is nothing more than that.

> AFAICT Natanson.net has no business relation with Constant Contact.
> Forgive my scepticism, but if you say you are representing them, please
> post from a place where that can be cited. Interesting to note the
> domain you've used is also 'anonymous';

There's really nothing to read into there.  The domain was purchased
for me by a family member a long time ago as a christmas present. It
was in their name (along with several other  family domains) and they
were sick of the snail mail and email they got to the registered
addresses so they did something through godaddy to pay for private
registration.   If it helps I'll email you from work on Monday.  I'm
actually on vacation this week and purposely do not have access to my
work mail.

Tara Natanson

[Benny Pedersen]

On Fri, July 3, 2009 23:29, Res wrote:

> Why are people still using the outdated and no longer recommended
> domain TXT method?

2 problems:

1: sa uses default mail::spf::query
2: dns hosters use txt for anything even there bind support spf record
3: what about dkim then ? :)

> The RR type SPF was ratified some time ago. If an OS uses an antiquated
> resolver that does not know about the SPF RR, that too is the operators
> problem, no one elses.

i know i can use spf rr, but what will happend on remote if mail::spf is not used ? :)

> -Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers

i wish i had one of them sometimes :)

--
xpoint

[Benny Pedersen]

On Sat, July 4, 2009 07:16, richard@... wrote:
. Even Benny's
> "You don't have SPF so I'm blocking you" was clearly b/s when I tried it
> with other MX's with no SPF. Nothing more than a kiddy rule set-up
> FWICS.

thanks for 170 spam mails, your /29 is now perm blocked in my postfwd, pleaase say nice job to me for help out on your silly spf
that is non working and even the openspf wizard is maybe not very helpfull to you ?, get a life before its to late


--
xpoint

On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 18:36 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:

> On Sat, July 4, 2009 07:16, richard@... wrote:
> . Even Benny's
> > "You don't have SPF so I'm blocking you" was clearly b/s when I tried it
> > with other MX's with no SPF. Nothing more than a kiddy rule set-up
> > FWICS.
>
> thanks for 170 spam mails, your /29 is now perm blocked in my postfwd, pleaase say nice job to me for help out on your silly spf
> that is non working and even the openspf wizard is maybe not very helpfull to you ?, get a life before its to late
>
>

FOAD TWONK

On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 09:28 -0400, Tara Natanson wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 3:05 AM,
> richard@...<richard@...> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you can look at your customer;
> >
> > Received: from ccm01.constantcontact.com ([63.251.135.74]) by
> > From: GearSourceEurope <info@...>
> > Reply-To: info@...
> > Sender: GearSourceEurope <michelle@...>
>
> I'll let you know what I find.
> >
> > I've lost count of the times I've been in touch with you over that one
> > (never to get a resolution)
>
> Me personally?  Don't think I've seen this one come up before.  If
> you've sent it to abuse@, I'll see what they've done with it.

If you could. It's been ongoing. It's funny you are here saying you deal
with this stuff, yet my server logs tell me something rather different.
However, I'll give you the benefit for now.

>
> > As for the Barracuda Whitelist. I think Micheal Perone has an interest
> > in Constant Contact Tara - Or would my information be wrong? Please be
> > aware that LOTS of internal information regarding Constant Contact -v-
> > Barracuda is known to me.
>
> I don't know Michael, I usually work with Jann Gobble (formerly Jann
> Linder). All I know is what he has told me.  He contacted our support
> group a few years back out of the blue because when they blocked us
> several of their customers got very upset.  He wanted to work out a
> way to keep his customers happy and to deal with any spam complaints
> that came in.  he has several direct escalation paths at his disposal
> should he get complaints about our mail and he uses them when he needs
> to.

That is an interesting inversion of what has been said inside Barracuda.
The story went that Constant Contacted did so much bitching about having
there mail blocked Linder had to white list them. Orders from on high.
Whilst he is only a grunt responsible for the 'intent' listings and
partly the Barracuda BL, I've no reason to doubt the version of events
circulating around the US and UK offices regarding Constant Contact. I
can tell you that I handled a fair few calls from UK and US customers
very unhappy with the fact Constant Contact were white listed following
questionable email. I recall speaking with him at the time and the view
he expressed to me was he would like to have blocked you period but his
hands were tied.

I don't dispute *YOU* don't know MP. I've got a gut feel there will be a
connection there somewhere. Normally, when spammers are white listed,
Perone has an interest or a friend some place.

>
> > Finally - and here is the thing I find a bit odd - if you really are
> > from Constant Contact would you not be using one of their email
> > addresses - or at least a server?. After all, as you put it 'We are an
> > ESP'.
>
> sorry, I am on several private lists. Lists I have been on for 10
> years through a few different employers.  If I signed up for those
> lists with my @constantcontact.com address my employer would own that
> mail.  I don't really think they'd read my mail, but I'm still not
> comfortable with that so I sign up for all lists (even the public ones
> like this) with my own personal domain.  Its just my family domain,
> the website is nothing more than that.

Well, I can only take you at face value that you are here representing
Constant Contact. If I call up the office switchboard Tara, can I speak
with you there? It's just I've called up Constant Contact and hit #9 for
the directory and your name is not in there? Perhaps there is a
misspelling or something?

>
> > AFAICT Natanson.net has no business relation with Constant Contact.
> > Forgive my scepticism, but if you say you are representing them, please
> > post from a place where that can be cited. Interesting to note the
> > domain you've used is also 'anonymous';
>
> There's really nothing to read into there.  The domain was purchased
> for me by a family member a long time ago as a christmas present. It
> was in their name (along with several other  family domains) and they
> were sick of the snail mail and email they got to the registered
> addresses so they did something through godaddy to pay for private
> registration.   If it helps I'll email you from work on Monday.  I'm
> actually on vacation this week and purposely do not have access to my
> work mail.
>

I'll call up between 9-9 est and speak with you about the issues with a
couple of other regulars from CC.
> Tara Natanson

[Neil Schwartzman-2]

On 05/07/09 1:56 PM, "richard@..." <richard@...>
wrote:

> I don't dispute *YOU* don't know MP. I've got a gut feel there will be a
> connection there somewhere. Normally, when spammers are white listed,
> Perone has an interest or a friend some place.

I'm going to chalk this one up to the "Constant Contact paid Spamassassin
money to whitelist them" category of inane assertions.
 

>>> Finally - and here is the thing I find a bit odd - if you really are
>>> from Constant Contact would you not be using one of their email
>>> addresses - or at least a server?. After all, as you put it 'We are an
>>> ESP'.
>>
>> sorry, I am on several private lists. Lists I have been on for 10
>> years through a few different employers.  If I signed up for those
>> lists with my @constantcontact.com address my employer would own that
>> mail.  I don't really think they'd read my mail, but I'm still not
>> comfortable with that so I sign up for all lists (even the public ones
>> like this) with my own personal domain.  Its just my family domain,
>> the website is nothing more than that.
> Well, I can only take you at face value that you are here representing
> Constant Contact. If I call up the office switchboard Tara, can I speak
> with you there? It's just I've called up Constant Contact and hit #9 for
> the directory and your name is not in there? Perhaps there is a
> misspelling or something?

Perhaps you can use this new thing called 'google' they have out, it is way
kewl:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=Tara+Natanson+%2B+con
stant+contact&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
--
Neil Schwartzman
Director, Certification Security & Standards
Return Path Inc.
0142002038

[J.D. Falk-2]

richard@... wrote:

>> sorry, I am on several private lists. Lists I have been on for 10
>> years through a few different employers.  If I signed up for those
>> lists with my @constantcontact.com address my employer would own that
>> mail.  I don't really think they'd read my mail, but I'm still not
>> comfortable with that so I sign up for all lists (even the public ones
>> like this) with my own personal domain.  Its just my family domain,
>> the website is nothing more than that.
> Well, I can only take you at face value that you are here representing
> Constant Contact. If I call up the office switchboard Tara, can I speak
> with you there? It's just I've called up Constant Contact and hit #9 for
> the directory and your name is not in there? Perhaps there is a
> misspelling or something?

You probably won't trust this, either, but here goes: I've met Tara and
other Constant Contact employees at conferences many times, and they all say
she works there.

(I'm similarly not using my employer's domain, because none of the
available Exchange-compatible clients have appropriate message threading for
discussion lists.)

But who are /you/, Richard?  How do we know you're /really/ a SpamAssassin
user, and not just pretending?

--
J.D. Falk

On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 11:00 -0600, J.D. Falk wrote:

> richard@... wrote:
>
> >> sorry, I am on several private lists. Lists I have been on for 10
> >> years through a few different employers.  If I signed up for those
> >> lists with my @constantcontact.com address my employer would own that
> >> mail.  I don't really think they'd read my mail, but I'm still not
> >> comfortable with that so I sign up for all lists (even the public ones
> >> like this) with my own personal domain.  Its just my family domain,
> >> the website is nothing more than that.
> > Well, I can only take you at face value that you are here representing
> > Constant Contact. If I call up the office switchboard Tara, can I speak
> > with you there? It's just I've called up Constant Contact and hit #9 for
> > the directory and your name is not in there? Perhaps there is a
> > misspelling or something?
>
> You probably won't trust this, either, but here goes: I've met Tara and
> other Constant Contact employees at conferences many times, and they all say
> she works there.

Yep, I've confirmed that too.
>
> (I'm similarly not using my employer's domain, because none of the
> available Exchange-compatible clients have appropriate message threading for
> discussion lists.)
They don't? Really?
>
> But who are /you/, Richard?
A users@...
>   How do we know you're /really/ a SpamAssassin
See above

Is there anything else I can help you with?

[sm-7]

At 10:56 05-07-2009, richard@... wrote:
>Well, I can only take you at face value that you are here representing
>Constant Contact. If I call up the office switchboard Tara, can I speak
>with you there? It's just I've called up Constant Contact and hit #9 for
>the directory and your name is not in there? Perhaps there is a
>misspelling or something?

The name is spelled correctly.  I consider that the person is
speaking on behalf of that organization based on the message posted (
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200907.mbox/%3Cac9ad70907041849m735b0b68mb0909b83216b04f8@...%3E 
)

Regards,
-sm

On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 10:36 -0700, SM wrote:

> At 10:56 05-07-2009, richard@... wrote:
> >Well, I can only take you at face value that you are here representing
> >Constant Contact. If I call up the office switchboard Tara, can I speak
> >with you there? It's just I've called up Constant Contact and hit #9 for
> >the directory and your name is not in there? Perhaps there is a
> >misspelling or something?
>
> The name is spelled correctly.  I consider that the person is
> speaking on behalf of that organization based on the message posted (
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200907.mbox/%3Cac9ad70907041849m735b0b68mb0909b83216b04f8@...%3E 
> )
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>

That's great - but we have already established that a few hours ago. As
you are keen to offer your opinion and experience;

Have you handled spam or irate customer getting spam from Constant
Contact?

What do you think about Constant Contact having a white list score in
Spamassassin despite being listed in the multi.uri?

What do you think about them being white listed by Barracuda?

I'm keen to hear a cross section of views.

[DAve-12]

richard@... wrote:

> On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 10:36 -0700, SM wrote:
>> At 10:56 05-07-2009, richard@... wrote:
>>> Well, I can only take you at face value that you are here representing
>>> Constant Contact. If I call up the office switchboard Tara, can I speak
>>> with you there? It's just I've called up Constant Contact and hit #9 for
>>> the directory and your name is not in there? Perhaps there is a
>>> misspelling or something?
>> The name is spelled correctly.  I consider that the person is
>> speaking on behalf of that organization based on the message posted (
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200907.mbox/%3Cac9ad70907041849m735b0b68mb0909b83216b04f8@...%3E 
>> )
>>
>> Regards,
>> -sm
>>
> That's great - but we have already established that a few hours ago. As
> you are keen to offer your opinion and experience;
>
> Have you handled spam or irate customer getting spam from Constant
> Contact?
>
> What do you think about Constant Contact having a white list score in
> Spamassassin despite being listed in the multi.uri?
>
> What do you think about them being white listed by Barracuda?
>
> I'm keen to hear a cross section of views.

I could care less who or what gets whitelisted in any app/device. I care
about whether it can be turned off easily or not.

If the majority of SA users find CC gives little or no spam, let SA add
CC to a whitelist by default. Better to let some spam in by default then
to keep ham out.

Just don't take away my switch.

DAve


--
"Posterity, you will know how much it cost the present generation to
preserve your freedom.  I hope you will make good use of it.  If you
do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to
preserve it." John Quincy Adams

http://appleseedinfo.org

[sm-7]

At 11:00 06-07-2009, richard@... wrote:
>Have you handled spam or irate customer getting spam from Constant
>Contact?

I prefer not to comment on that.

>What do you think about Constant Contact having a white list score in
>Spamassassin despite being listed in the multi.uri?

There are several other domains which are on that list.  You can
remove a domain from the white list if you believe that it does not
belong in it.

>What do you think about them being white listed by Barracuda?

As this mailing list is about SpamAssassin, I don't think that it
matters around here.

Regards,
-sm