On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 13:18 -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > On 10/7/2013 7:53 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote: > > If, on inspection, there is any reliable way to distinguish spam from > > ham in the stream coming from cvent, you could drop the RBL score down > > a lot (0.01 ?) and write a meta that blocks just the spam. > Perhaps but I do think there is some measure of a need for negative > consequences for many firms to be reliable and conscientious netizens. > I'm not disagreeing with you: it would be nice if the likes of cvent would police their subscribers better, ideally by running subscriber output streams through SA.
My suggestion was meant for the OP rather than generally was made on the assumption that cvent was not going to listen to any criticism or police its subscribers. > I'm not "out" to get cvent but I do have some pretty hard evidence they > have a spamming problem. I'm very interested in what they say about it > and I'm giving them the opportunity to explain. > A low-cost solution would be for their outgoing MTA to add a header to tag outgoing messages with identify of the subscriber. This is unforgeable since it would be added by the sending smarthost and would make it easy to block spamming cvent subscribers with a meta-rule while leaving other mail sources alone. It would also leave the definition of a 'spammer' to the receiving MTA. This has benefits since some message content is not universally regarded as spam. Cheers, Martin
