Okay, here we go again... ;-) ===== Domain, proflowers.MUNGEDcom is listed on WS. ===== ===== Sending IP listed on two aggressive RBLs, otherwise looks clean: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ip4r.ch?ip=198.31.62.30 ===== ===== Domain, proflowers.com, registered through Network Solutions and domain registered in early 1998: Record created on 04-Feb-1998 ===== ===== Address space owned by Level 3: [whois.arin.net] Level 3 Communications, Inc. LVLT-ORG-198-31 (NET-198-31-0-0-1) 198.31.0.0 - 198.31.255.255
Subnet delegated to: Double Click DOUBLECLICK7-62-28 (NET-198-31-62-0-1) 198.31.62.0 - 198.31.63.255 RegDate: 2003-03-28 ===== ===== No NANAS listings: References: [ Proflowers: 0 ] =====
Anything else needed for this one? :-\
Bill
Good afternoon, Bill, BTW, thanks for your efforts in this. As someone mentioned earlier, please don't take requests for more information personally; deciding whether to whitelist someone is, at times, a tough process for all of us. Case in point:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Bill Landry wrote:
Okay, here we go again... ;-)
Domain, proflowers.MUNGEDcom is listed on WS.
===== Sending IP listed on two aggressive RBLs, otherwise looks clean: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ip4r.ch?ip=198.31.62.30 ===== ===== Domain, proflowers.com, registered through Network Solutions and domain registered in early 1998: Record created on 04-Feb-1998 ===== ===== Address space owned by Level 3: [whois.arin.net] Level 3 Communications, Inc. LVLT-ORG-198-31 (NET-198-31-0-0-1) 198.31.0.0 - 198.31.255.255
Subnet delegated to: Double Click DOUBLECLICK7-62-28 (NET-198-31-62-0-1) 198.31.62.0 - 198.31.63.255 RegDate: 2003-03-28 ===== ===== No NANAS listings: References: [ Proflowers: 0 ] =====
Anything else needed for this one? :-\
I received an earlier inquiry from proflowers; here's my answer to them:
========== The emails I'm concerned about are the ones sent at Proflowers' request by email marketing companies. Between January 30th, 2002 and May 4th, 2004, I received 50 email messages marketing your products. Here are the subjects, duplicates removed:
Dozen Roses & FREE Chocolates ONLY $39.99! : DOZEN ROSES & FREE CHOCOLATES ONLY $39.99! =?646?Q?Dozen_Roses_Plus_a_Box_of_Ghirardelli_?= A dozen long-stemmed roses, only $29.99 with FREE Ghirardelli chocolates DON'T DELETE THIS MESSAGE -- FOLDER INTERNAL DATA DOZEN ROSES & CHOCOLATES ONLY $39.99! BY FedEx ON VALENTINE S DAY! Dozen Long-Stemmed Roses Plus a Free Box of Chocolates! Dozen Long-Stemmed Roses and Free Chocolates only $29.99! Dozen Roses & FREE Chocolates ONLY $29.99! Guaranteed Delivery! Dozen Roses & FREE Chocolates ONLY $39.99! Dozen Roses & FREE Chocolates ONLY $39.99! Dozen Roses Only $39.99 Plus a Free Box of Chocolates Dozen Roses Only $39.99 Plus a Free Box of Chocolates! Dozen Roses Only $39.99 Plus a Free Box of Chocolates! Dozen Roses and Box of Chocolates -- $39.99 (Hurry!) Dozen Roses and Free Chocolates Only $29.99 Dozen Roses and Ghirardelli Chocolates Only $39.99! Dozen Roses and a Box of Chocolates only $39.99 Dozen Roses and a Box of Ghirardelli Chocolates only $39.99! Dozen Roses for $39.99 Plus A Free Box of Chocolates! EASTER ROSES $29.99 + FREE CHOCOLATES! Flowers for Mom - Delivered from 29.99 Flowers for your special Mom Lock In Low Prices For Valentine's Day Flowers + Complimentary Glass Vase Mother's Day Flowers + Glass Vase only *$29.99* Mother's Day Flowers - Only $29.99 plus Complimentary Vase Mother's Day Roses for $39.99 with FREE Chocolate Remember Mom with a dozen long-stemmed roses, only $39.99 with free chocolate Rose Bouquets $39.99 with free chocolates! Roses for Mom, only $29.99 with FREE chocolates *OFFER ENDS MAY 3rd! Special MOTHER'S DAY LONG-STEMMED ROSES ONLY $29.99! FREE CHOCOLATES! Thanksgiving Roses for $29.99 w/Free Vase Thanksgiving flowers you must send The Perfect Mother?s Day Gift ? Fresh Fruit Baskets From $29.99 Valentine's Flowers from $29.99 + Beautiful Glass Vase Valentine's Roses Only $39.99 with a Box of Chocolates adv:Flowers & Free Chocolate - Last Chance
These messages came into my main address and a secondary address that could only have been harvested in a manner that violated the license agreement at the sole site where it was used (note, I'm not claiming your company did this, but the company supplying the addresses did). Neither address requested the mails or had any existing business relationship with your company. In my mind, these emails satisfy the conditions to be considered Unsolicited Bulk Email, and that satisfies the requirements for Proflowers and the intermediate marketing companies to be placed on a list of companies that send UBE. ==========
That said, I'm willing to consider removing them, especially if they're hitting false positives. Other opinions? Cheers, - Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- "That vulnerability is completely theoretical." -- Microsoft L0pht, Making the theoretical practical since 1992. (Courtesy of "Deliduka, Bennet" bennet.deliduka@state.vt.us) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- William Stearns (wstearns@pobox.com). Mason, Buildkernel, freedups, p0f, rsync-backup, ssh-keyinstall, dns-check, more at: http://www.stearns.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----- From: "William Stearns" wstearns@pobox.com
That said, I'm willing to consider removing them, especially if they're hitting false positives.
Well, let's wait to see what others think about this one. It's just strange that they come up so clean everywhere else.
Bill
on Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 01:31:20PM -0700, Bill Landry wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "William Stearns" wstearns@pobox.com
That said, I'm willing to consider removing them, especially if they're hitting false positives.
Well, let's wait to see what others think about this one. It's just strange that they come up so clean everywhere else.
Well, dejagoogle/nanas seems to offer a suspiciously large set of reports.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Landry" billl@pointshare.com To: "SURBL Discussion list" discuss@lists.surbl.org Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] FP on WS
----- Original Message ----- From: "William Stearns" wstearns@pobox.com
That said, I'm willing to consider removing them, especially if they're hitting false positives.
Well, let's wait to see what others think about this one. It's just
strange
that they come up so clean everywhere else.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=proflowers.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT...
Seems they've cleaned up their act a bit lately......
enough old NANAS entries: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=proflowers.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT...
I'd say remove, not whitelist... Valentine's day will show :)
Alex
On Monday, August 30, 2004, 1:51:57 PM, Alex Broens wrote:
From: "Bill Landry" billl@pointshare.com
From: "William Stearns" wstearns@pobox.com
That said, I'm willing to consider removing them, especially if they're hitting false positives.
Well, let's wait to see what others think about this one. It's just
strange
that they come up so clean everywhere else.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=proflowers.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT...
Seems they've cleaned up their act a bit lately......
enough old NANAS entries: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=proflowers.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT...
I'd say remove, not whitelist... Valentine's day will show :)
I'd say whitelist it. They probably have many more legitimate uses than spam, therefore blocking it would cause more collateral damage than good. It also seems they're at least trying to cut back on spamming if we accept the decrease in recent NANAS sightings.
Bill Stearns do you mind much if I whitelist?
Jeff C.
Good evening, Jeff,
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Monday, August 30, 2004, 1:51:57 PM, Alex Broens wrote:
From: "Bill Landry" billl@pointshare.com
From: "William Stearns" wstearns@pobox.com
That said, I'm willing to consider removing them, especially if they're hitting false positives.
Well, let's wait to see what others think about this one. It's just
strange
that they come up so clean everywhere else.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=proflowers.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT...
Seems they've cleaned up their act a bit lately......
enough old NANAS entries: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=proflowers.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT...
I'd say remove, not whitelist... Valentine's day will show :)
I'd say whitelist it. They probably have many more legitimate uses than spam, therefore blocking it would cause more collateral damage than good. It also seems they're at least trying to cut back on spamming if we accept the decrease in recent NANAS sightings.
Bill Stearns do you mind much if I whitelist?
Unless there are any objections, I think that would probably be best, yes. Thank you, everyone for your input. Cheers, - Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- "This door is baroquen, please wiggle Handel. (If I wiggle Handel, will it wiggle Bach?)" -- Found on a door in the MSU music building (Courtesy of Slashdot) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- William Stearns (wstearns@pobox.com). Mason, Buildkernel, freedups, p0f, rsync-backup, ssh-keyinstall, dns-check, more at: http://www.stearns.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Monday, August 30, 2004, 4:54:03 PM, William Stearns wrote:
Good evening, Jeff,
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Monday, August 30, 2004, 1:51:57 PM, Alex Broens wrote:
From: "Bill Landry" billl@pointshare.com
From: "William Stearns" wstearns@pobox.com
That said, I'm willing to consider removing them, especially if they're hitting false positives.
Well, let's wait to see what others think about this one. It's just
strange
that they come up so clean everywhere else.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=proflowers.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT...
Seems they've cleaned up their act a bit lately......
enough old NANAS entries: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=proflowers.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT...
I'd say remove, not whitelist... Valentine's day will show :)
I'd say whitelist it. They probably have many more legitimate uses than spam, therefore blocking it would cause more collateral damage than good. It also seems they're at least trying to cut back on spamming if we accept the decrease in recent NANAS sightings.
Bill Stearns do you mind much if I whitelist?
Unless there are any objections, I think that would probably bebest, yes. Thank you, everyone for your input. Cheers, - Bill
OK I have whitelisted proflowers.com in SURBLs.
Jeff C.
-
Alex Broens -
Bill Landry -
Jeff Chan -
Steven Champeon -
William Stearns