From brettc@ActiveState.com Wed May 11 03:53:34 2005
From: Brett Cove <brettc@ActiveState.com>
To: discuss@lists.surbl.org
Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Feedback on adprofile.net wanted
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 18:57:51 -0700
Message-ID: <4281669F.6030103@activestate.com>
In-Reply-To: <357174725.20050509223413@surbl.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3446075248907317637=="

--===============3446075248907317637==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jeff Chan wrote:
> adprofile.net reportedly appeared in a flowers.com ham as:
>=20
> <td align=3D"middle"><a href=3D"http://tx.adprofile.net/tx/r?CID=3D12&M=3D3=
&sid=3D800ABC123"><IMG height=3D90
> src=3D"http://a1234.g.akamai.net/f/1233/1234/1a/www.1800flowers.com/800f_as=
sets/images/flowers/images/banners/swift me
> too120X90.gif" width=3D"120" NOSEND=3D"1" border=3D"0"></a></td>
>=20
> Yet it's listed on WS by Bill Stearns.   This may be a false
> positive.  Does anyone have any more information about it?

They have been hitting our spamtraps heavily for over a year now (April=20
2004, which is as far back as i could check), mostly arriving via SBL'd=20
relays.

> Catherine Hampton says it's not on her spam radar and others
> have said that they may be web spammers on guestbooks, wikis,
> etc. but not email spammers.  They seem to have some minor
> NANAS.

Could this explain the high traffic rating on Alexa=20
(http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=3Dadprofile.net)?

We've had these guys blocked for a long time and have received no=20
complaints.

-Brett

--===============3446075248907317637==--