On 10/7/2013 6:18 PM, Alex wrote:
How about just cvent.com? I've uploaded the headers from one FP here:
http://pastebin.com/UDuDcp4F
How would another RBL handle a company that I have personally received
evidence of spamming even if it causes FPs?
I personally received the spam from them from what appears to be scraped
whois data: http://pastebin.com/Q0knc6ei has the headers for the two emails.
So if cvent is legit, they are being abused by people sending spam and I
consider them candidates for the list but I'm open to suggestions.
They're a huge event planning company, but also apparently are email marketers.
Agreed. I see the duality issue. I just don't know that I plan to give
them any leniency.
Somehow I forgot this was your RBL. How many entries are on it?
Approximately 1700 for the past 30 days.
What's
your procedure for adding them?
Right now, very manual. We are testing procedures that bring more
automation to the research process.
I also might recommend you consider lowering the scores I am using. I often
write poison pill rules that the project would never allow but they are
based on careful analysis of my corpora. YMMV and I'm open to feedback as I
mentioned. Just don't expect to always like my decisions.
We had one user complain, and after investigating, realized there are
hundreds of messages in the quarantine from this sender. They mostly
appear to be just e-marketing crap, but there are a few where people
have actually planned events and missed their confirmation emails,
etc., so I can't just block them.
I agree it has collateral damage. You can explain to them that the
emails can be found marked as spam because the company running the
events are spammers is my main response. And searching more about
cvent.com just makes me question their practices and others (such as
http://www.pissedconsumer.com/reviews-by-company/cvent.html) have
confirmed what I have seen which is harvesting of Whois data and
spamming it.
With a poison pill attitude towards them, wouldn't it just be better
to reject them outright?
I don't use any RBLs for rejection, only for scoring.
Anyway, I'm hoping you could explain your RBL further, because I value
your expertise, and would like to take advantage of this, but will
probably have to adapt a bit for my environment.
Understood completely and the scores are there for you to override.
The RBL is built out of a manually-reviewed corpora of complaints that I
cull together from users. The scores reflect that it's seen and
approved as being consistent with a spammer. And cvent.com isn't a FP
because I've personally review the corpora entry and it's not only
scraped, they also added technology to try and make the scraping appear
more personal but that technology introduced errors. Whether they are
buying lists or doing this internally, the emails I sampled did not come
from partners but from people inside the firm. As such I am only gather
that they have a piss poor culture of spamming.
Regards,
KAM
