[SURBL-Discuss] Help!!!!!!!!!!!

SURBL Whitelisters whitelist at surbl.org
Fri May 8 17:58:06 CEST 2009


On 5/8/09, webdev <webdev at storedk.com> wrote:
> " We don't filter our removal requests using our own data.  If we did
>   that, then how would anyone be able to contact us about removals?"
>
>
> This is exactly what I'm trying to get across. Whatever method you are using is
>  preventing us from using the email address you give us.

Can you provide a bounce or error message?  Because the whitelist
address currently has almost no filtering on it.

Try sending a message to see if it gets through to whitelist at surbl . org

If it doesn't get through, then post the bounce here and we'll try to
correct any problems.

As you can see we are trying to make a good effort.

>  I already stated that I know you are not the one doing the blocking. I'm trying to
>  suggest that your list would be far more valuable if you didn't include domains
>  that were not guilty of spamming. This requires an easy method to report problems.

We have a web form and email address that most people have no problem using.

If you're having difficulty, will you let us help with it?

>  I have contacted email admins in the past with a simple email requesting
>  whitelisting and they took care of it in a couple of days. Both parties understood
>  that if there was a real spam problem, the whitelisting would be removed.

SURBL removal requests are often processed within a few hours.

>  Here you are treated as an enemy until you find a way to prove otherwise.

Given the above, that would appear to be a misperception or mistatement.

>  I've
>  already taken care of our problem by getting the other email administrators to
>  stop using the list.

Who are the mail administrators?  Can we contact them to let them hear
our side?

>  Now I'm just trying to help others that got caught in the
>  same catch 22 that I did. Saying that you are not responsible for how others use
>  your information, while true, demonstrates a total lack of sympathy for the plight
>   that innocent people find themselves in as a result of the information you
>  provide.

If you knew how much effort we put into data quality, you would know
that your statement is unfair.

>  I would think that you would have an interest in providing the most
>  accurate information possible.

Of course.  Independent tests show that our information is highly accurate.

Reference:

  http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/


More information about the Discuss mailing list