Re: [Declude.JunkMail] BONDEDEDSENDER and SNIFFER

2005-01-29 Thread Kim Premuda
Thanks Matt, Scott, and Andrew, for your feedback and your perspectives on this matter. It appears BONDEDSENDER isn't as trustworthy as they claim. Best regards, -- Kim W. Premuda FastWave Internet Services San Diego, CA -- --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [This

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] BONDEDEDSENDER and SNIFFER

2005-01-28 Thread Matt
BondedSender has created a bit of a habit of protecting places that have spam problems or are even what many of us would consider to be spammers. While Pete tends to think that I am too liberal in my definition of good E-mail, the folks at BondedSender (IronPort) believe that I am way too

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] BONDEDEDSENDER and SNIFFER

2005-01-28 Thread Colbeck, Andrew
You decide, Kim. If you decide that Message Sniffer is wrong, and you are a licenced user, then report it to SortMonster as per their false positive reporting procedure. Perhaps a particular bulk mailer is using a web bug or some other small bit of text that is the same as a spammer's.

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] BONDEDEDSENDER and SNIFFER

2005-01-28 Thread Scott Fisher
They seem to have taken on a couple of bad entities lately here too. I've noticed some scoring oddities. For me beliefnet . com, coolsavings . com, ediets . com and YOURNEWSLETTERS . NET are the questionable or undesired entities that are listed on bonded sender. Usually a quick add to a fromfile