Does Drako know you are posting here Bob? It's a bit naughty. He had everyone sign a form saying they would not post to places like this? You really should know better.
We all know that Barraucda are behind emailreg. We know that emailreg is 'cash for spamming'. We know that support have been told *NOT* to disable emailreg on Barracuda units. It's a done deal. The 'narrative' is to suggest that non customer pay to sign up at emailreg.org so cut the crap. As a side note, it's nice to see you here acknolwedging Spamassassin after stealing it and selling it for so long in Barracuda products. Your a bunch of digital thieves really, so on face value anything you say can only be taken as bullshit - so why not crawl back under that fucking rock you dragged your fat worthless ass out from? Give my love to that sick gay bastard Gobble gobble. On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 11:20 -0700, Bob O'Brien wrote: > April 29? > You started your narrative on 5/28 with an explicitly specified three week > time frame. On the 29th, I looked at four weeks of history, and the factual > numbers were lower. If that's where the discrepancy arose, then we may not > really disagree about anything of consequence. > > > No, I definitely did not say that I work for emailreg. > I said that one aspect of my duties here at Barracuda includes sending > "suggestions" to emailreg. Suggestions which they (at least for now) choose > to implement directly. > > > > > Bob > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Neil Schwartzman [mailto:neil.schwartz...@returnpath.net] > Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 11:58 AM > To: Bob O'Brien; Spamassassin > Subject: Re: Barracuda Blacklist > > > > > On 29/05/09 4:09 PM, "Bob O'Brien" <bobr...@barracuda.com> wrote: > > > Neil, > > > > Based on our "Requests for Removal" filed over the past 3+ weeks from > > ReturnPath, the number of IPs that you are claiming to have had issues with > > appears inflated by a factor of nearly 50%. > > > Bob, I don't want to waste this group's time with your incorrect assertion. > (this is beginning to be VERY off-topic). I have data for each and every IP > you listed and for which I requested a delisting. Happy to follow up with > you offlist. > > Indeed, the Barracuda auto-acks only stared coming in May 09, so perhaps the > system was hosed in some manner and it missed recording everything I did > between April 29 and May 08, for which we saw delistings the following days > in any event. > > > More importantly, I feel it is irresponsible to oversimplify a cleared > > listing > > as a "false positive" when speaking of *any* IP reputation system. > > > > Barracuda Reputation does not arbitrarily list hosts. Messages have passed > > through each host with characteristics indicative of spam. > > > I suggest Barracuda then work on the verbiage on the site and in the > auto-acks. What you are saying does not jibe with what is indicated > elsewhere. What you are saying ... Makes more sense. > > > Those listings > > would only have been cleared because someone contacted the BRBL team and > > requested their clearance - explicitly volunteering /some/ measure of > > responsibility for those hosts going forward. _Accepting_ your > > possibly-inflated numbers, the 409 IPs otherwise met the criteria for > > clearing, so they were cleared. Apparently 22 IPs did not, and those were > > not > > cleared. > > Yup. And that's great. > > Quick question though: You said that you work for emailreg.org, and have > some limited input into the BRBL, I believe. > > It seems to me there is a greater relationship between emailreg.org and > Barracuda than has been stated, given what appears to be intimate knowledge > of my delisting requests. Can you clarify? > > Thanks. >
