Here's another to look at

[qqqq <qq...@usermail.com>]

X-Spam-Report:
 * -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
 *  1.7 EXCUSE_6 BODY: Claims you can be removed from the list
 *  3.0 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist
 *      [URIs: goldenpalace_MUNGE.com]
 *  1.5 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist
 *      [URIs: goldenpalace_MUNGE.com]
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.3 required=5.5 tests=EXCUSE_6=1.746,
 SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001,URIBL_BLACK=4,URIBL_WS_SURBL=1.533
 autolearn=disabled version=3.1.0

Subject:[ReveNews] - 5 New Entries


This was a mailing list a paying customer signed up for.

Keep in mind that the FP's are real low,  I may just keep the scores as is and deal with these
mailing lists as they pop up.

QQQQ

Re: Here's another to look at

[John Rudd <jr...@ucsc.edu>]

On May 9, 2006, at 12:47 PM, qqqq wrote:

> X-Spam-Report:
>  * -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
>  *  1.7 EXCUSE_6 BODY: Claims you can be removed from the list
>  *  3.0 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist
>  *      [URIs: goldenpalace_MUNGE.com]
>  *  1.5 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist
>  *      [URIs: goldenpalace_MUNGE.com]
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.3 required=5.5 tests=EXCUSE_6=1.746,
>  SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001,URIBL_BLACK=4,URIBL_WS_SURBL=1.533
>  autolearn=disabled version=3.1.0
>
> Subject:[ReveNews] - 5 New Entries
>
>
> This was a mailing list a paying customer signed up for.
>
> Keep in mind that the FP's are real low,  I may just keep the scores 
> as is and deal with these
> mailing lists as they pop up.
>

One thing you could try is: a rule that looks to see if it's definitely 
from the mailing list in question, and definitely to the customer in 
question, then lower the score by lots of points (may 100, just like it 
was a "whitelist" entry).

The advantage: only the user who requested this will get a lower score, 
and only for that mailing list; every other user (or that use with 
similar emails not from that list) wont see a lowering of scores.

The disadvantage: you've just gotten in the business of 
per-customer/per-sender whitelisting, and you need to come up with a 
decent way of managing such a list of rules.


Or, if you're just making the messages and not 
rejecting/bouncing/blocking/intercepting them, then just tell the 
customer how to do their own semi-whitelisting (how to sort the message 
into its own folder before whatever spam-sorting rule they use (in 
procmail, in their client, etc.)).  The advantage here is that it is 
the customer who manages their own mechanism for this, but it requires 
users who are willing to "take action" to control things instead of 
just being whiners.

Re: Here's another to look at

[Kelson <ke...@speed.net>]

Matt Kettler wrote:
> They also engage other "creative" marketing tactics. They sponsored the guy who
> streaked at the superbowl in 2004, who painted their URL on his chest before
> running naked onto the field:

Didn't they also sponsor one of the X-Prize contestants?  I seem to 
recall that they gave one of the teams a bunch of money in exchange for 
renaming the ship the "Golden Palace something-or-other"

Just as well that Scaled Composites won.  "Spaceship One" isn't exactly 
an exciting name, but at least it wasn't an online gambling company's 
name going down in history.

-- 
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications <www.speed.net>

Re: Here's another to look at

[Matt Kettler <mk...@evi-inc.com>]

qqqq wrote:
> X-Spam-Report:
>  * -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
>  *  1.7 EXCUSE_6 BODY: Claims you can be removed from the list
>  *  3.0 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist
>  *      [URIs: goldenpalace_MUNGE.com]
>  *  1.5 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist
>  *      [URIs: goldenpalace_MUNGE.com]
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.3 required=5.5 tests=EXCUSE_6=1.746,
>  SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001,URIBL_BLACK=4,URIBL_WS_SURBL=1.533
>  autolearn=disabled version=3.1.0
> 
> Subject:[ReveNews] - 5 New Entries
> 
> 
> This was a mailing list a paying customer signed up for.


That puts you in a difficult place.. they asked for it, but these guys are known
spamvertizers.

They also engage other "creative" marketing tactics. They sponsored the guy who
streaked at the superbowl in 2004, who painted their URL on his chest before
running naked onto the field:

*WARNING* The following URL has a full-length photo with a clear shot of the
streaker and the URL legible on him:

http://www.gamblingpress.com/archive/2004/02/0111-super-bowl-streaker.htm

Re: Here's another to look at

[Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>]

On Tuesday, May 9, 2006, 12:47:46 PM, qqqq qqqq wrote:
> X-Spam-Report:
>  * -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
>  *  1.7 EXCUSE_6 BODY: Claims you can be removed from the list
>  *  3.0 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist
>  *      [URIs: goldenpalace_MUNGE.com]
>  *  1.5 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist
>  *      [URIs: goldenpalace_MUNGE.com]
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.3 required=5.5 tests=EXCUSE_6=1.746,
>  SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001,URIBL_BLACK=4,URIBL_WS_SURBL=1.533
>  autolearn=disabled version=3.1.0

> Subject:[ReveNews] - 5 New Entries


> This was a mailing list a paying customer signed up for.

> Keep in mind that the FP's are real low,  I may just keep the scores as is and deal with these
> mailing lists as they pop up.

> QQQQ


FWIW I've whitelisted goldenpalace off all SURBLs.

FFS, if you get FPs, report them to whitelist at surbl. org

Jeff C.
-- 
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
http://www.surbl.org/

Re: Here's another to look at

[jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>]

From: "qqqq" <qq...@usermail.com>

> X-Spam-Report:
> * -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
> *  1.7 EXCUSE_6 BODY: Claims you can be removed from the list
> *  3.0 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist
> *      [URIs: goldenpalace_MUNGE.com]
> *  1.5 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist
> *      [URIs: goldenpalace_MUNGE.com]
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.3 required=5.5 tests=EXCUSE_6=1.746,
> SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001,URIBL_BLACK=4,URIBL_WS_SURBL=1.533
> autolearn=disabled version=3.1.0
>
> Subject:[ReveNews] - 5 New Entries
>
>
> This was a mailing list a paying customer signed up for.
>
> Keep in mind that the FP's are real low,  I may just keep the scores as is and deal with 
> these
> mailing lists as they pop up.

Per user whitelists appear to be needed to handle this. The name itself
makes me think "heavy porn".

Personally I am not a proper political animal so I'd tell the customer
to check their spam folder for this email if they want it. Whois shows
the site is indeed a porn site. If you generally whitelist it then
you open your whole email service to a porn spammer.

{o.o}