Just a quick note:
Reviewing this week's emails looking for candidates for my SA whitelist.cf, I saw that an email from accuradio.com, with a URI to www.accuradio.com, had hit URIBL_OB_SURBL.
I just did a SURBL check, and it's not there now, so I'm guessing it was a temporary fluke. However, since in three years I've received emails from accuradio only to the specific email address I supplied them, not to any other, and have not receiving any emails from anyone else to that address, I believe this domain worth whitelisting to avoid future similar events.
Submitting the whitelist now.
Bob Menschel
On Sunday, May 22, 2005, 6:52:01 PM, sare sare wrote:
Just a quick note:
Reviewing this week's emails looking for candidates for my SA whitelist.cf, I saw that an email from accuradio.com, with a URI to www.accuradio.com, had hit URIBL_OB_SURBL.
I just did a SURBL check, and it's not there now, so I'm guessing it was a temporary fluke. However, since in three years I've received emails from accuradio only to the specific email address I supplied them, not to any other, and have not receiving any emails from anyone else to that address, I believe this domain worth whitelisting to avoid future similar events.
Submitting the whitelist now.
Bob Menschel
Bob, Since you say they're whitehats, I'll go ahead and whitelist them in SURBLs. Of minor interest one of their nameservers is on SORBS:
212.118.243.118 dns5.name-services.com
http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?212.118.243.118
And their third party advertising partner, whom they claim not to share email addresses with:
http://www.accuradio.com/privacy.asp
appears to have some possible connections to spamming:
http://www.maxonline.com/privacy_policy/index.php
Note that the best place to send whitelist requests is probably to whitelist at surbl dot org, though I personally like open discussion of these in most cases.
Jeff C. -- Don't harm innocent bystanders.
Hello Jeff,
Sunday, May 22, 2005, 7:19:04 PM, you wrote:
JC> On Sunday, May 22, 2005, 6:52:01 PM, Bob Menschel wrote:
Reviewing this week's emails looking for candidates for my SA whitelist.cf, I saw that an email from accuradio.com, with a URI to www.accuradio.com, had hit URIBL_OB_SURBL. ...
Submitting the whitelist now.
JC> Bob, JC> Since you say they're whitehats, I'll go ahead and whitelist them in SURBLs.
Shouldn't be necessary since I did so through my own SURBL whitelist file...
JC> Of minor interest one of their nameservers is on SORBS: JC> 212.118.243.118 dns5.name-services.com JC> http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?212.118.243.118
I noticed that. Tried to follow that link, but couldn't get any information without registration, which I don't have time for right now.
JC> And their third party advertising partner, whom they claim not to JC> share email addresses with: JC> http://www.accuradio.com/privacy.asp JC> appears to have some possible connections to spamming: JC> http://www.maxonline.com/privacy_policy/index.php
Looking at that privacy policy, everything references online web ads; there's nothing there about email at all.
And again, I use a unique email for accuradio.com, and I've never received spam to that address, so accuradio.com isn't sharing that address with any spammer.
JC> Note that the best place to send whitelist requests is probably JC> to whitelist at surbl dot org, though I personally like open JC> discussion of these in most cases.
I'll keep that in mind. Added to my address book. Thanks.
Bob Menschel
Hi bob,
Reviewing this week's emails looking for candidates for my SA whitelist.cf, I saw that an email from accuradio.com, with a URI to www.accuradio.com, had hit URIBL_OB_SURBL. ...
Submitting the whitelist now.
JC> Bob, JC> Since you say they're whitehats, I'll go ahead and whitelist them in SURBLs.
Shouldn't be necessary since I did so through my own SURBL whitelist file...
Care to share? Perhaps more listed that that we should look into ?
Bye, Raymond.
On Sunday, May 22, 2005, 8:15:25 PM, sare sare wrote:
Hello Jeff,
Sunday, May 22, 2005, 7:19:04 PM, you wrote:
JC>> On Sunday, May 22, 2005, 6:52:01 PM, Bob Menschel wrote:
Reviewing this week's emails looking for candidates for my SA whitelist.cf, I saw that an email from accuradio.com, with a URI to www.accuradio.com, had hit URIBL_OB_SURBL. ...
Submitting the whitelist now.
JC>> Bob, JC>> Since you say they're whitehats, I'll go ahead and whitelist them in SURBLs.
Shouldn't be necessary since I did so through my own SURBL whitelist file...
Yes, if it's ham for you then it should probably be globally whitelisted so it doesn't hit other people's ham.
As Raymond says, we'd probably like to see and possibly include your whitelist in the SURBL one, if you can be sure they're all whitehats.
Jeff C. -- Don't harm innocent bystanders.
On Sunday, May 22, 2005, 8:15:25 PM, Bob M. wrote:
Sunday, May 22, 2005, 7:19:04 PM, Jeff C. wrote:
JC>> And their third party advertising partner, whom they claim not to JC>> share email addresses with: JC>> http://www.accuradio.com/privacy.asp JC>> appears to have some possible connections to spamming: JC>> http://www.maxonline.com/privacy_policy/index.php
Looking at that privacy policy, everything references online web ads; there's nothing there about email at all.
And again, I use a unique email for accuradio.com, and I've never received spam to that address, so accuradio.com isn't sharing that address with any spammer.
accuradio.com's privacy policy states:
"Third Party Advertising We use MaxOnline and other third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our Web site. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address or telephone number) about your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements on this site and other sites about goods and services that may be of interest to you."
Note the "(not including your name, address, email address or telephone number)" part, which is good. Says accuradio.com doesn't share that data with their advertiser.
Jeff C. -- Don't harm innocent bystanders.
Since you say they're whitehats, I'll go ahead and whitelist them in SURBLs. Of minor interest one of their nameservers is on SORBS:
212.118.243.118 dns5.name-services.com
name-services.com is used by Register.com / Namebargain.com for their customer DNS services.
Regards,
Joseph
On Sunday, May 22, 2005, 11:39:05 PM, Joseph Burford wrote:
Since you say they're whitehats, I'll go ahead and whitelist them in SURBLs. Of minor interest one of their nameservers is on SORBS:
212.118.243.118 dns5.name-services.com
name-services.com is used by Register.com / Namebargain.com for their customer DNS services.
Regards,
Joseph
Hmm, then it probably should not be blacklisted:
black-rmenschel-200504:name-services.com
Bob Menschel, Can you comment further on this listing of yours on sa-blacklist/ ws.surbl.org?
Jeff C. -- Don't harm innocent bystanders.
-
Jeff Chan -
Joseph Burford -
Raymond Dijkxhoorn -
sare＠menschel.net