Does anyone have opinions on whether mailbacks.com should be whitelisted? Currently it's in OB, but it has no NANAS or SBL hits.
Registrant: Vincent Associates INc (TOFGMBXNWD) 26 Lesmill Rd Toronto Ontario M3B 2T5 CA Domain Name: MAILBACKS.COM Administrative Contact: Vincent Associates INc royst@vincentinc.com
26 Lesmill Rd Toronto Ontario M3B 2T5 CA 416 445 5443 x 236 fax: 416 445 4504 Technical Contact: Retail Holding Inc. NSI nsiholding@verisign.com
NSI Retail Holding Inc. 13200 Woodland Park Drive Herndon VA 20171 CH 818-547-9420 fax: 818-547-9420 Record expires on 12-Aug-2014. Record created on 12-Aug-2004. Database last updated on 26-Sep-2004 05: 11: 36 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: NS0.VINCENTINC.COM 209.5.255.57 NS1.VINCENTINC.COM 209.167.106.57 NS0.BIZCONTINUITY.COM 209.167.206.130 NS2.BIZCONTINUITY.COM 207.219.9.10
Jeff C.
On Sunday, September 26, 2004, 2:37:03 AM, Jeff Chan wrote:
Does anyone have opinions on whether mailbacks.com should be whitelisted? Currently it's in OB, but it has no NANAS or SBL hits.
Registrant: Vincent Associates INc (TOFGMBXNWD) 26 Lesmill Rd Toronto Ontario M3B 2T5 CA Domain Name: MAILBACKS.COM
[...]
Record expires on 12-Aug-2014. Record created on 12-Aug-2004.
While the domain registration for mailbacks.com is recent, the one for the parent company (same name servers) is quite old:
Domain Name: VINCENTINC.COM Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC. Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com Name Server: NS0.BIZCONTINUITY.COM Name Server: NS2.BIZCONTINUITY.COM Name Server: NS0.VINCENTINC.COM Name Server: NS1.VINCENTINC.COM Status: ACTIVE Updated Date: 06-jul-2004 Creation Date: 10-may-1996 Expiration Date: 11-may-2012
The company looks legitimate. Unless there's some good evidence they're spamming from mailbacks.com, I'm inclined to whitelist. Anyone have any info or research?
Outblaze, what do your trapped messages look like?
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
Hi!
Does anyone have opinions on whether mailbacks.com should be whitelisted? Currently it's in OB, but it has no NANAS or SBL hits.
The company looks legitimate. Unless there's some good evidence they're spamming from mailbacks.com, I'm inclined to whitelist. Anyone have any info or research?
I didnt get any of them in our spamtraps, but neither in our regular spam collection, neither its in Joe's list. So if there is any, please post some, we are not aware of then, NANAS and SBL indeed telling the same, for now could we remove it from the OB list, not whitelist it, but just remove, so we see when things get in again ?
Bye, Raymond.
On Sunday, September 26, 2004, 3:26:31 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Does anyone have opinions on whether mailbacks.com should be whitelisted? Currently it's in OB, but it has no NANAS or SBL hits.
The company looks legitimate. Unless there's some good evidence they're spamming from mailbacks.com, I'm inclined to whitelist. Anyone have any info or research?
I didnt get any of them in our spamtraps, but neither in our regular spam collection, neither its in Joe's list. So if there is any, please post some, we are not aware of then, NANAS and SBL indeed telling the same, for now could we remove it from the OB list, not whitelist it, but just remove, so we see when things get in again ?
Perhaps Outblaze will give some feedback. If not let's whitelist.
The fact that the parent company has been on the Internet for 8 years leads me to think they may not be professional criminal spammers.
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
On Sunday, September 26, 2004, 3:26:31 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Does anyone have opinions on whether mailbacks.com should be whitelisted? Currently it's in OB, but it has no NANAS or SBL hits.
The company looks legitimate. Unless there's some good evidence they're spamming from mailbacks.com, I'm inclined to whitelist. Anyone have any info or research?
I didnt get any of them in our spamtraps, but neither in our regular spam collection, neither its in Joe's list. So if there is any, please post some, we are not aware of then, NANAS and SBL indeed telling the same, for now could we remove it from the OB list, not whitelist it, but just remove, so we see when things get in again ?
Outblaze replied to me to whitelist them for now and they would watch for new incidents.
I've whitelisted it, but our whitelisting takes away visibility for any future incidents since it means this one won't get back into SURBLs unless we specifically remove the manual whitelisting.
Outblaze if you can, please give us a shout if you see them spamming in future.
Thanks,
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
-
Jeff Chan -
Raymond Dijkxhoorn