-----Original Message----- From: Chris Santerre [mailto:csanterre@merchantsoverseas.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 12:06 PM To: 'SURBL Discussion list' Subject: RE: [SURBL-Discuss] WS & DS FP?
-----Original Message----- From: Bill Landry [mailto:billl@pointshare.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 11:39 AM To: 'SURBL Discussion list' Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] WS & DS FP?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Santerre" csanterre@merchantsoverseas.com
I agree. But the legit companies were spamming. That was
what I was trying
to say, although poorly :) Some of the NANAS posts have
legit companies in
them, but are spam. Most likely they paid a company to
market them. Or they
tried there hand at doing it themselves and purchased a
list. This looks
like the main focus of yesmail/clickaction. A mass email marketing
company.
SO they will get legit companies to pay them to
advertise/spam for them.
They are a spammer for hier. I don't see them in ANY legit
mail other then
this one single run with itworld. And that is because of a
seminar on how to
use email for mass marketing! I may get overruled on this
one, but I'm
sticking to my guns that they are spammers.
The IT World newsletter link to clickaction had nothing to do with a mass marketing seminar. If you review my original post again, you will see that it was used for a very legitimate purpose, to allow users that have problems viewing their IT World newsletter subscription in HTML format to be able to change it to a text based format - that was it, pure and simple.
There are lots of other ways to block clickaction if people feel that that is necessary, however, since there are obviously very legitimate uses for clickaction services by very legitimate companies, I do not feel that listing them in any of the SURBL is appropriate. My vote is to keep them whitelisted for now.
So once again, a spammer gets 1-2 legit companies to use them, and they get removed from all RBLs? If that is how we are going to operate, we might as well shutdown now. Game over.
"obviously very legitimate uses for clickaction services"
SO itworld wanted to reduce there own traffic and have this legit bulk done by a "Legit commercial email marketer". Well they picked the wrong one. This isn't the first time we have seen this and it won't be the last.
The PROPER thing to do is inform itworld of the history of the marketer they are dealing with.
Whitelist? No way in hell. Temp remove, sure go ahead, but they are just going to get submitted again. Then what? Why not local whitelist then for your site?
I'm starting to sound like the crazy SPAM-L locals :) BUt I'm tired of having this one single argument every week. Spammer who gets legit businesses to sign up....we need to deal with this now. Otherwise, like I said, game over.
--Chris (Antispam nut!)
More info: http://www.badads.org/january02.shtml
They have been providing email support for itworld since 2001! Maybe itworld needs a clue! http://emailuniverse.com/list-news/?id=298
--Chris (Still digging.)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Santerre" csanterre@merchantsoverseas.com
So once again, a spammer gets 1-2 legit companies to use them, and they get removed from all RBLs? If that is how we are going to operate, we might as well shutdown now. Game over.
It's not just one or two legit companies that use clickaction, probably more like hundreds. As for the RBL/RHSBLs, I don't find clickaction listed in any of them except the BLARSBL, which is one of the most aggressive: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ip4r.ch?ip=clickaction.net
"obviously very legitimate uses for clickaction services"
SO itworld wanted to reduce there own traffic and have this legit bulk done by a "Legit commercial email marketer". Well they picked the wrong one. This isn't the first time we have seen this and it won't be the last.
IT World opts to use a legitimate clackaction services, what's wrong with that?
The PROPER thing to do is inform itworld of the history of the marketer they are dealing with.
Have at it, but I am sure they would dispute your assessment of clickaction.
Whitelist? No way in hell. Temp remove, sure go ahead, but they are just going to get submitted again. Then what? Why not local whitelist then for your site?
Because I am not the only one that uses the SURBL. Better that you blacklist them at your site than force everyone that uses the SURBLs to whitelist them.
I'm starting to sound like the crazy SPAM-L locals :) BUt I'm tired of having this one single argument every week. Spammer who gets legit businesses to sign up....we need to deal with this now. Otherwise, like I said, game over.
Exaggeration, I'm sure... ;-)
Bill
-
Bill Landry -
Chris Santerre