Tara Natanson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Adam Katz antis...@khopis.com
wrote:
Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant
Contact http://www.constantcontact.com/anti_spam.jsp ?
Hello,
I work for Constant Contact. We take reports of spam very
I get junk from these guys all of the time, others that have followed
the 'opt-out' IMO just use it
to confirm an email address for sale to others, such as themselves.
Maybe I am just extra
paranoid, but marketers should just stick to a web search for people
that want to purchase from
them.
When Constant
Contact gets a clue and automatically requests an opt-in confirmation
for ALL email addresses uploaded in bulk by their customers then I'll
stop adding a a high score in SA.
The problem with that is that most of Constant Contact's customers are small
business that may have users
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 13:29 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, John Rudd wrote:
Me. I work for one of their clients (a University). One or two of
our divisions use them for large mailings to our internal users.
How is Constant Contact better than (say) GNU mailman
Hi!
One factor in scoring white list like mine is that different people have
different definitions as to what is spam. And people have different values as
to blocking spam at the expense of blocking good email. In my business if I
block a good email it's worse than 100 spams getting through.
to our internal users.
How is Constant Contact better than (say) GNU mailman for that purpose?
It's so you can pay someone to send spam, skip past lots of things like
Barracuda Network$$$ devices and other filters and not have to face the
music and termination from your provider for spamming
). One or two of
our divisions use them for large mailings to our internal users.
How is Constant Contact better than (say) GNU mailman for that purpose?
It's so you can pay someone to send spam, skip past lots of things like
Barracuda Network$$$ devices and other filters and not have
:
Me. I work for one of their clients (a University). One or two of
our divisions use them for large mailings to our internal users.
How is Constant Contact better than (say) GNU mailman for that
purpose?
It's so you can pay someone to send spam, skip past lots of things like
, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, John Rudd wrote:
Me. I work for one of their clients (a University). One or two of
our divisions use them for large mailings to our internal users.
How is Constant Contact better than (say) GNU mailman for that
purpose?
It's so
I wouldn't say they are perfect but they try to be. It's
close enough for my white list. They shut down abusers and
the opt out works.
marc,
we shouldnt have to opt out...
-rh
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 14:24 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 07:26 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
[...] Why are we covering for their mistakes and
supporting a company that profits from sending spam, even if its only
sometimes, by whitelisting them?
We aren't. If you
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 18:53 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 14:24 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 07:26 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
[...] Why are we covering for their mistakes and
supporting a company that profits from sending spam,
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 18:24 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 18:53 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 14:24 +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
[...] but as it's being discussed here - I'm guessing
somewhere in SA something is 'greasing the
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 19:58 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
In other words, how comes you're only venting about the companies you
despise, and don't even mention the whitelist with a single word?
guenther
You need to deal with your personality issues - this is *not* about *you*
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 06:24, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Remember, if the
sender was really clean, their would be zero need for CC.
Absolute unadulterated BS.
This is equivalent to saying all of those lay-people who just get
gmail or yahoo or hotmail accounts -- if
Hi,
rawbody __CCM_UNSUB
/https?:..visitor\.constantcontact.com\/[^]{60,200}SafeUnsubscribe/
Ouch! Rawbody, that hurts.
Do you mean that it's much more resource-intensive than a regular
body check? When is it necessary (or possible) to use it over the
URIDetail substitute you mentioned?
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 17:37 -0400, Alex wrote:
rawbody __CCM_UNSUB
/https?:..visitor\.constantcontact.com\/[^]{60,200}SafeUnsubscribe/
Ouch! Rawbody, that hurts.
Do you mean that it's much more resource-intensive than a regular
body check?
You can't use body rules here -- the
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 16:25 -0400, Adam Katz wrote:
My own proposal to fixing this is to bring back Blue Security's
do-not-email list, which is to say a freely available index of
secure hashes representing email addresses that have opted out of
bulk email. (Recall
to stay
along with the hate-laden descriptions, waiting in archives for click-
happy monkeys to copy-n-paste without even thinking.
Yes, my score. Given one of Marc's other comments about how he
maintains his white list (and his insistence on keeping Constant Contact
on the white list rather than
R-Elists wrote:
I wouldn't say they are perfect but they try to be. It's
close enough for my white list. They shut down abusers and
the opt out works.
marc,
we shouldnt have to opt out...
-rh
Perhaps, but it doesn't make it spam.
marc,
yes, yes it does make it spam if i have no idea who they are or why they are
emailing me and/or my clients.
it sure as all get out makes it spam.
marc, are you boozing or just tired?
- rh
Perhaps, but it doesn't make it spam.
Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant
Contact http://www.constantcontact.com/anti_spam.jsp ?
In preparing a list of HOSTKARMA_W violators for Marc, I noticed a
very large amount of spam, coming from completely different companies,
was sent through constantcontact.com
I've heard ads on the radio for Constant Contact before, so I would guess
they're legitimate.
Thomas E. Casartello, Jr.
Staff Assistant - Wireless/Linux Administrator
Information Technology
Wilson 105A
Westfield State College
Red Hat Certified Technician (RHCT)
-Original Message-
From
Adam Katz wrote:
Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant
Contact http://www.constantcontact.com/anti_spam.jsp ?
Sometimes abused, but too legit to outright block based on sending IP, imo.
The biggest problem is that they're well seeded in the DNS whitelists,
Many
Adam Katz wrote:
Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant
Contact http://www.constantcontact.com/anti_spam.jsp ?
Hi,
Very legitimate. We have 4 or 5 clients who use it to send out emails
to their subscribers.
How ever, it can and does get abused by spammers from
On Oct 16, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Rick Macdougall wrote:
Adam Katz wrote:
Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant
Contact http://www.constantcontact.com/anti_spam.jsp ?
Hi,
Very legitimate. We have 4 or 5 clients who use it to send out
emails to their subscribers
Hi,
Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant
Contact http://www.constantcontact.com/anti_spam.jsp ?
Sometimes abused, but too legit to outright block based on sending IP, imo.
In addition to constantcontact, can I add the following to the list of
hosts I'd like
MySQL Student wrote:
Hi,
Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant
Contact http://www.constantcontact.com/anti_spam.jsp ?
Sometimes abused, but too legit to outright block based on sending IP, imo.
Just to add another data point -- There is a local
that
frequently comes up is how to get out bulk mailings to their
customers. When that topic comes up, one of the most common
recommendations, and what many of them use, is Constant Contact. It
does the job cleanly and efficiently and fits in their budgets. Many
of them have had an experience of trying to do
Complaints liks this keep coming up for various whitelists.
The usage alternative I just suggested may solve this problem
for many people.
--
Rob McEwen
Mc,
what usage alternative?
- rh
person out of their
home), and one of the questions that frequently comes up is how to get out
bulk mailings to their customers. When that topic comes up, one of the most
common recommendations, and what many of them use, is Constant Contact. It
does the job cleanly and efficiently and fits
here is a fine chance for everyone to vote on some new rule names...
ill seed it...
CONSTANT_PITA_BULK1
let's be creative now, it's Friday!
well, it is always Friday, but you get the point...
- rh
R-Elists wrote:
Complaints liks this keep coming up for various whitelists.
The usage alternative I just suggested may solve this problem
for many people.
Just what I said. If an IP whitelist cause too many spams to get a free
pass, then instead of using that whitelist as a free pass to the
So, even though I cringe when I hear a name like Constant
Contact, it does serve a legitimate business need.
snip
Chris Hoogendyk
Chris,
-1
no disrespect to you intended, yet says who?
our general experience with Constant Contact is negative.
- rh
On Friday 16 October 2009, Adam Katz wrote:
Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant
Contact http://www.constantcontact.com/anti_spam.jsp ?
In preparing a list of HOSTKARMA_W violators for Marc, I noticed a
very large amount of spam, coming from completely different
the score on Constant
Contact emails so that nothing slips by???
if semi proprietary you cannot share on list, please ping me off...
- rh
using for your various rules to up the score on Constant
Contact emails so that nothing slips by???
if semi proprietary you cannot share on list, please ping me off...
- rh
Nothing proprietary, or even SA related, just a recipe in my .procmailrc, so
its handed to /dev/null before SA is even
I wrote:
Before I write a custom rule to add points to anything passing through
a constantcontact.com relay, I was wondering if anybody here had
thoughts on this.
R-Elists wrote:
what are you using for your various rules to up the score on Constant
Contact emails so that nothing slips
On 10/16/2009 01:14 PM, Chris Owen wrote:
On Oct 16, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Rick Macdougall wrote:
Adam Katz wrote:
Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant
Contact http://www.constantcontact.com/anti_spam.jsp ?
Hi,
Very legitimate. We have 4 or 5 clients who use
On Friday, October 16, 2009, 11:49:43 AM, Adam Katz wrote:
AK After some web searches, I decided to use the unsubscribe feature, but
AK apparently I needed to unsubscribe every email address with every
AK company that uses constantcontact.com. To me, this means it is quite
AK clear that Constant
Warren Togami wrote:
For reasons like this I will not manually unsubscribe spam from
constantcontact.com or tell them what addresses were being sent. They
deserve a hurt reputation if they have a poor anti-spam policy.
Unsubscribing only the offending addresses only artificially hides the
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Adam Katz antis...@khopis.com wrote:
Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant
Contact http://www.constantcontact.com/anti_spam.jsp ?
Hello,
I work for Constant Contact. We take reports of spam very seriously.
Complaints are processed
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:07, R-Elists list...@abbacomm.net wrote:
So, even though I cringe when I hear a name like Constant
Contact, it does serve a legitimate business need.
says who?
Me. I work for one of their clients (a University). One or two of
our divisions use them for large
Rob McEwen schrieb:
Just what I said. If an IP whitelist cause too many spams to get a free
pass, then instead of using that whitelist as a free pass to the
inbox... instead... use it to bypass all checking of the sender IPs
against blacklists, but still do content spam filtering on the
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Tara Natanson wrote:
Hello,
I work for Constant Contact. We take reports of spam very seriously.
Complaints are processed through our abuse@ address but you won't ever
hear what happened to it there other than an auto-ack. If you'd like
to send me any complaints I can
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, John Rudd wrote:
Me. I work for one of their clients (a University). One or two of
our divisions use them for large mailings to our internal users.
How is Constant Contact better than (say) GNU mailman for that purpose? I
don't understand the concept of sending
On 10/16/2009 10:25 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
I suppose it's possible that your customer base is large enough that
there aren't any repeat offenders and that each case is unique ...
digging through my archives, I don't see more than 2x of any message
from a CC customer.
look at this way, some
\.constantcontact\.com\s/
meta KHOP_CONSTANTCONTACT __CCM_UNSUB __CCM_RELAY
describe KHOP_CONSTANTCONTACT Constant Contact is a known spammer
scoreKHOP_CONSTANTCONTACT 4 # increase as needed
Wholly inappropriate, IMHO. Seriously.
--
char *t=\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 13:29, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, John Rudd wrote:
Me. I work for one of their clients (a University). One or two of
our divisions use them for large mailings to our internal users.
How is Constant Contact better than (say) GNU
the terminology used would be appropriate, you
rather should take the then-false listing up with the whitelist.
Already did. I've requested the Constant Contact IPs find their way
to HostKarma's Yellow or NOBL lists and out of the White list.
If you're not checking against a whitelist to undo
with the whitelist.
Already did. I've requested the Constant Contact IPs find their way
to HostKarma's Yellow or NOBL lists and out of the White list.
Do note that Hostkarma WHITE is not part of the stock rule-set.
Moreover, it is *your* score of a whopping -2.1 for the third-party DNS
BL test you're
Adam Katz wrote:
Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant
Contact http://www.constantcontact.com/anti_spam.jsp ?
In preparing a list of HOSTKARMA_W violators for Marc, I noticed a
very large amount of spam, coming from completely different companies,
was sent through
One factor in scoring white list like mine is that different people have
different definitions as to what is spam. And people have different
values as to blocking spam at the expense of blocking good email. In my
business if I block a good email it's worse than 100 spams getting
through. I am
Hi,
How is Constant Contact better than (say) GNU mailman for that purpose? I
don't understand the concept of sending internal mail via an external third
party...
In addition to what's already been mentioned, CC also provides a nice
template that people can drop their message into and click
Tara Natanson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Adam Katz antis...@khopis.com wrote:
Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant
Contact http://www.constantcontact.com/anti_spam.jsp ?
Hello,
I work for Constant Contact. We take reports
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 15:09 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
I wouldn't say they are perfect but they try to be. It's close enough
for my white list. They shut down abusers and the opt out works.
^
This implies there is, in fact, abuse. Thus, they are not
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 16:25 -0400, Adam Katz wrote:
My own proposal to fixing this is to bring back Blue Security's
do-not-email list, which is to say a freely available index of secure
hashes representing email addresses that have opted out of bulk email.
(Recall that the controversial
Adam Katz wrote:
Does anybody here know anything about the legitimacy of Constant
Contact http://www.constantcontact.com/anti_spam.jsp ?
In preparing a list of HOSTKARMA_W violators for Marc, I noticed a
very large amount of spam, coming from completely different companies,
was sent through
From:
Chris Owen ow...@hubris.net
To:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
Cc:
Tara Natanson t...@natanson.net
Subject:
Re: constantcontact.com
Date:
Mon, 6
+1 for ending this thread
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:25 PM,
rich...@buzzhost.co.ukrich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
From:
Chris Owen ow...@hubris.net
To:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
Cc:
Tara Natanson
On Mon, July 6, 2009 20:25, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Received-SPF: unknown (nike.apache.org: error in processing during lookup of
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk)
priseless
--
xpoint
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 20:55 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Mon, July 6, 2009 20:25, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Received-SPF: unknown (nike.apache.org: error in processing during lookup of
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk)
priseless
That should read 'priceless' - I hate to be the pedant, but
62 matches
Mail list logo
