Hi,
AddictionReport (dot) com is listed in ws & jp, however, I just received a legit mail including a (supposedly pay) advertisement by them.
The mail is Randy Cassingham's newslatter "This is True" (http://www.thisistrue.com/), which includes plain text advertisement, and one of these hit badly.
The advertisement read like this: ----------==========**********O**********==========---------- HOW CAN ANYONE BE SUCH AN IDIOT? What's the connection between suicide bombers, New Orleans thugs, half the people you read about in This is True, financial abuse, emotional abuse and the need to blame everyone else for one's problems? Doug Thorburn explains destructive behaviors and more, including how to AVOID being caught up in their games. Fascinating books, FREE monthly Addiction Report newsletter: http://www (dot) AddictionReport (dot) com ----------==========**********O**********==========----------
Regards.
AddictionReport (dot) com is listed in ws & jp, however, I just received a legit mail including a (supposedly pay) advertisement by them.
AddictionReport .com is listed in ws, jp *AND* SpamCop, at least according to the headers on my copy of "This is True".
X-SpamBouncer: 2.2 alpha (09/09/05) X-SBNote: Bulk Email (From_Daemon/Listserv/Resent/Precedence) X-SBRule: Spam Haven IP (One Month Ago) X-SBRule: Body Domain: AddictionReport .com is in SURBL (William Stearns) X-SBRule: Body Domain: AddictionReport .com is in SURBL (Spamcop) X-SBRule: Body Domain: AddictionReport .com is in SURBL (Wein/Dijkxhoorn) X-SBScore: 25 (Spam Threshold: 20) (Block Threshold: 5) X-SBClass: Spam
Although "This is True" is to the best of my knowledge a COI list, when a domain manages to get itself listed on three SURBLs, chances of it not being spammy are somewhere in the noise, IMHO. :/ Somebody needs to have a serious discussion with the owners of this domain about where they are advertising/i.e. the company that they are keeping. I'd bet a significant chunk of change that these listings were not due to "This is True" being reported for spamming.
2005/9/19, Catherine Hampton ariel@spambouncer.org:
Although "This is True" is to the best of my knowledge a COI list, when a domain manages to get itself listed on three SURBLs, chances of it not being spammy are somewhere in the noise, IMHO. :/ Somebody needs to have a serious discussion with the owners of this domain about where they are advertising/i.e. the company that they are keeping. I'd bet a significant chunk of change that these listings were not due to "This is True" being reported for spamming.
Hi Catherine...
I'm not following SURBL development lately, but, at least sometime ago, it was pretty easy to get listed just because someone "forgot" that he/she was subscribed to a coi newsletter (or someone else did, for a role account)...
I Cc'ed Randy Cassingham (the author of "This is True") the original message, since he contacted me about a year ago when a bunch of his own domains got listed (see http://lists.surbl.org/pipermail/discuss/2004-September/002280.html)... he's even written an anti-spam page himself (see http://www.spamprimer.com/)...
Randy answered me stating "I'm QUITE confident that they don't spam"... I *do* trust him and, although you don't have to, addictionreport.com *may* have deceived him and they *could* be a spamming site... a quick search in NANAS (http://tinyurl.com/9yaoa) and NANAE (http://tinyurl.com/dzsgb) didn't bring any result...
Do you have knowledge of actual spam involving addictionreport.com? Randy was interested in this (since addictionreport.com is actually a customer of advertising for him).
OTOH, AFAIK, SURBL lists have a "no FP" policy, so, showing a FP is an indicator that an entry should be whitelisted.
Regards.
Both Mariano and Catherine make good points. If a domain appears in hams then we usually don't want to list it. OTOH if it appears in several different SURBL lists, then there's probably something wrong with it, and it's definitely appearing in spams.
Maybe Joe Wein or Raymond can comment since it's on JP.
Jeff C. -- Don't harm innocent bystanders.
Maybe Joe Wein or Raymond can comment since it's on JP.
Raymond,
is this from your end? It's not in my database.
Joe
Jeff C.
Don't harm innocent bystanders.
Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Both Mariano and Catherine make good points. If a domain appears in hams then we usually don't want to list it. OTOH if it appears in several different SURBL lists, then there's probably something wrong with it, and it's definitely appearing in spams.
Yeah.... The easiest explanation for this particular domain, I think, is that the domain owner is paying to advertise in a number of newsletters. The one that Mariano and I both get is COI. Others are spammed.
Does that make the domain a spamming domain? That depends on whether the domain owner is aware that some of the newsletters in which he's paying to advertise are spammed. That's hard to prove, but I have my suspicions.
Still, I think it might be a good idea to remove the listing for now. SURBL does have that pesky "no false positives" rule. <G> I also suspect that newsletters that are spammed can be caught by other means -- many of them come from IP blocks owned by the spammers, rather than via open proxies, and many of them contain unsubscribe links that point to the domains owned by the actual spammers.
Maybe Joe Wein or Raymond can comment since it's on JP.
<nod>
If you'd like, I can also put a flag on the spamtrap and see if I can grab emails that contain this URI. That might give us a better idea why it is showing up so widely in SURBL.
-
ariel＠spambouncer.org -
Jeff Chan -
Joe Wein -
Mariano Absatz