On Thursday, December 23, 2004, 3:51:58 PM, Brett Cove wrote:
William Stearns wrote:
Good afternoon, all, We discussed proflowers earlier this year. To quote Jeff:
It also seems they're at least trying to cut back on spamming if we accept the decrease in recent NANAS sightings.
I just received 4 more spams from them, one attached. Perhaps theyjust get quiet between holidays? I'd like to place one vote for blacklisting them. Opinions?
We've seen piles of spam promoting proflowers.com in the past two days, all containing asandox.com uris and arriving via an asandox.com relay. IMO asando.com (http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL20781) is the uri that should be blocked, not proflowers.com.
FWIW I've added to the SC manual blacklist:
asandox.com havagreatday.com
Both were getting SpamCop reports already, so I've nudged them onto the list. They're also on SBL, some NANAS, etc.
http://www.spamhaus.org/SBL/sbl.lasso?query=SBL16372 http://www.spamhaus.org/SBL/sbl.lasso?query=SBL20781
http://www.spamhaus.org/SBL/sbl.lasso?query=SBL12057
Perhaps not too surprisingly they share name and mail servers:
66.63.176.2 ,3 ,4
66.63.182.2
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."