You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <mi...@blacknight.ie> on 2008/09/04 15:48:12 UTC
senderbase rating - how to appeal?
Does anyone know how you can appeal or query a senderbase rating?
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
US: 213-233-1612
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Re: senderbase rating - how to appeal?
Posted by SM <sm...@resistor.net>.
Hi Michele,
At 03:27 05-09-2008, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
>Our main issue wasn't with the listing but with the total lack of
>appeals procedure or delisting, as several large corporates seem to
>trust Senderbase and block based on its score
The "industry's most accurate reputation system" cannot be wrong.
:-) Most people trust DNSBLs because it's the magical solution to
their problems.
A reputation system does not work as a DNSBL and won't have a
delisting procedure. As for appeals, you'll have to convince them
that their data is not accurate. See whether you can get a
resolution through SpamCop.
Regards,
-sm
Re: senderbase rating - how to appeal?
Posted by "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <mi...@blacknight.ie>.
>
Joseph
Thanks :)
Our main issue wasn't with the listing but with the total lack of
appeals procedure or delisting, as several large corporates seem to
trust Senderbase and block based on its score
Thanks again
Michele
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
US: 213-233-1612
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
RE: senderbase rating - how to appeal?
Posted by RobertH <ro...@abbacomm.net>.
>
> If the spammer had faked a host that really sends mail, then we would
> have had a practical problem to solve. The cheapest solution would
> probably be to rename the host and change its IP, and let the spammer
> keep faking the old name and IP.
>
> Maybe a letter from your lawyer to Ironport would get attention. We
> did not go to that stage.
>
> Does that help?
>
> Joseph Brennan
> Lead Email Systems Engineer
If you have alumni or full time lawyers on staff at Columbia, get out the
lawyerStick much earlier
Or (har har) you could always start a EDU class project in CS to find the
ironport traps and send out emails to the traps in all their actual various
ironport and affiliated business domains and see if they fix the issues
;->
- rh
Re: senderbase rating - how to appeal?
Posted by Joseph Brennan <br...@columbia.edu>.
"Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <mi...@blacknight.ie> wrote:
> Does anyone know how you can appeal or query a senderbase rating?
>
No. I tried and failed over a period of many months.
Last year a spammer was inserting a faked Received header into millions
of messages a day, claiming that the spam originated at cs.columbia.edu
128.59.16.20. Senderbase ranked cs.columbia.edu as by far the largest
sender of mail in our domain. The catch? The host never sent mail at
all. We know that from our network traffic analysis and from asking
the system admins of the host. So actually the Senderbase rating and
any other blocklist rating for that host did not affect anything, since
no mail came from the host anyway. But for the sake of reputation we
asked Senderbase to correct the listing. Repeatedly.
NOTE, Senderbase is badly compromised because their software believes
Received headers. Some ratings are based on faked headers. We know
for a fact that the cs.columbia.edu rating was based 100% on faked
headers. One of the several Senderbase people I reached finally
agreed that they rated from Received headers instead of verified
connections. But it didn't matter. They just kept stalling and
referring it and so forth, and every month or two I'd try again,
and finally the spammer moved on.
If the spammer had faked a host that really sends mail, then we would
have had a practical problem to solve. The cheapest solution would
probably be to rename the host and change its IP, and let the spammer
keep faking the old name and IP.
Maybe a letter from your lawyer to Ironport would get attention. We
did not go to that stage.
Does that help?
Joseph Brennan
Lead Email Systems Engineer
Columbia University Information Technology
RE: senderbase rating - how to appeal?
Posted by RobertH <ro...@abbacomm.net>.
>
> Considering that only spammers (er... 'email marketing companies') pay for
> habeas, we have set a POSITIVE score for habeas accredited spam. We track
> any FP right up front, track any rule in a fp (releases from amavisd-new
> managed quarantine), we use sa-learn.pl on shared imap folders, and let
> users drag 'not spam' and 'whitelist user' to a shared folder (and keep
> track of all fp rules), so far, three years, no user has dragged a habeas
> certified email into the false positive folders.
>
> (on the other hand, lots of fps last month on failed dkim messages. New
> messages from gmail not even being signed.. I wonder if gmail knows
> something broke lately in dkim).
>
> --
> Michael Scheidell, CTO
Michael,
May we ask and know what you are setting those scores to please?
-rh
Re: senderbase rating - how to appeal?
Posted by Michael Scheidell <sc...@secnap.net>.
RobertH wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> May we ask and know what you are setting those scores to please?
>
> -rh
>
>
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@spamassassin.apache.org/msg25017.html
(note, even after complaints above, habeas still claims 'secure
referrals': proof I think that SA should lower these scores A LOT.
host 41.233.149.63.sa-accredit.habeas.com.
41.233.149.63.sa-accredit.habeas.com has address 127.0.0.50
*
10 to 39 : *Personal, transactional, and Confirmed Opt In*
*
40 to 59 : Secure referrals and Single Opt In
*
60 to 99 : Checked but not accredited by Habeas.
HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI is 'opt in or better' (orig -4.3) their score 49-59.
HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI is 'accredited or confirmed opt in or better'
(orig -8) their score 10-39
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5921
since habeas does nothing about spammers, I set (including flags to take
'nice' off)
score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI 2.5
tflags HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI net
score HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI 0
tflags HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI net
I added:
score HABEAS_UNCONFIRMED 8.0
tflags HABEAS_UNCONFIRMED net
header HABEAS_UNCONFIRMED eval:check_rbl('habeas-firsttrusted',
'sa-accredit.habeas.com.', '127\.\d+\.\d+\.[6789]\d')
even though spamassassin team says this is a habeas issue, there is
enough documented proof that the only people who use habeas are email
marketing companies, the very existence of an ip in the habeas network
proves it is bulk email, commercial bulk email. the decision as to if
your clients want (or should have) commercial bulk email is up to your
TOS. If you are an ISP, you should NOT use these above rules if you
have consumer clients. If you are the email administrator for a
business, and your business forbids users to use their email address for
personal use, then use them. If your marketing department has signed up
for 'permission based email', have them whitelist the senders.
Some might even use different tests to blacklist them at the MTA level,
graylisting won't help, these come from 'real' mail servers.
for postfix:
|smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
{standard tests}
reject rbl_client sa-accredit.habeas.com
|
--
Michael Scheidell, President
Main: 561-999-5000, Office: 561-939-7259
> *| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation
* Certified SNORT Integrator
* Everything Channel Hot Product of 2008
* Shaping Information Security Award 2008
* CRN Magazine Top 40 Emerging Security Vendors
_________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap(r).
For Information please see http://www.spammertrap.com
_________________________________________________________________________
Re: senderbase rating - how to appeal?
Posted by Michael Scheidell <sc...@secnap.net>.
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Greg Troxel <gd...@ir.bbn.com> wrote:
>
> After seeing similar spam from "accredited" senders, we disabled any
> score from the habeas rules long ago and have yet to notice any
> increase in FP (we have ~5000 fairly sensitive users who definitely
> let us know when things don't work as they want them to). I've know
> of other sites that have disabled the habeas rules/score as well with
> similar results. IMHO, they are not worth scoring on since they
> obviously do accredit sites that send UCE. Does anyone see any
> benefit from using habeus? Does it outweigh the spam that gets
> through because of them?
>
Considering that only spammers (er... 'email marketing companies') pay for
habeas, we have set a POSITIVE score for habeas accredited spam. We track
any FP right up front, track any rule in a fp (releases from amavisd-new
managed quarantine), we use sa-learn.pl on shared imap folders, and let
users drag 'not spam' and 'whitelist user' to a shared folder (and keep
track of all fp rules), so far, three years, no user has dragged a habeas
certified email into the false positive folders.
(on the other hand, lots of fps last month on failed dkim messages. New
messages from gmail not even being signed.. I wonder if gmail knows
something broke lately in dkim).
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
>|SECNAP Network Security
Winner 2008 Network Products Guide Hot Companies
FreeBSD SpamAssassin Ports maintainer
_________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap(r).
For Information please see http://www.spammertrap.com
_________________________________________________________________________
Re: senderbase rating - how to appeal?
Posted by Aaron Wolfe <aa...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Greg Troxel <gd...@ir.bbn.com> wrote:
>
> "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <mi...@blacknight.ie> writes:
>
>> Does anyone know how you can appeal or query a senderbase rating?
>
> I resisted answering at first, because I'm perhaps a bit too cynical:
>
> The way to appeal is to file a bug with spamassassin saying that
> senderbase is bogus and ask that any senderbase rules in SA be
> dropped.
>
> I don't know that spamassassin pays attention to senderbase; if not this
> probablly won't work. I say this, mostly joking, from my experience
> with habeas. I have gotten spam on multiple occasions from senders that
> are HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI, and complained to habeas - with absolutely
> zero useful response. I filed a bug:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5902
>
> and soon heard from habeas, who claimed that they revoked the listing of
> that sender.
>
> I then got more spam from a different habeas-accredited spammer, and
> complained privately to complaints@habeas.com, and heard nothing back.
>
> So the only rational conclusion seems to be that habeas accreditation is
> bogus, and they only respond to public pressure. Perhaps that's not
> true and I've been unlucky, but that's how it feels from my end.
>
After seeing similar spam from "accredited" senders, we disabled any
score from the habeas rules long ago and have yet to notice any
increase in FP (we have ~5000 fairly sensitive users who definitely
let us know when things don't work as they want them to). I've know
of other sites that have disabled the habeas rules/score as well with
similar results. IMHO, they are not worth scoring on since they
obviously do accredit sites that send UCE. Does anyone see any
benefit from using habeus? Does it outweigh the spam that gets
through because of them?
HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI spam (Was: senderbase rating - how to
appeal?)
Posted by SM <sm...@resistor.net>.
At 14:45 05-09-2008, Greg Troxel wrote:
>I don't know that spamassassin pays attention to senderbase; if not this
>probablly won't work. I say this, mostly joking, from my experience
>with habeas. I have gotten spam on multiple occasions from senders that
>are HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI, and complained to habeas - with absolutely
>zero useful response. I filed a bug:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5902
>
>and soon heard from habeas, who claimed that they revoked the listing of
>that sender.
>
>I then got more spam from a different habeas-accredited spammer, and
>complained privately to complaints@habeas.com, and heard nothing back.
>
>So the only rational conclusion seems to be that habeas accreditation is
>bogus, and they only respond to public pressure. Perhaps that's not
>true and I've been unlucky, but that's how it feels from my end.
The rule in the subject line is described as "Habeas Accredited
Opt-In or Better". That is not double Opt-In. If Habeas is not
responding to complaints sent to complaints@habeas.com, then it may
be better to set the current score for that test from -4.3 to 0.
>(If anyone thinks streamsend are other than spammers, please email me
>privately and let me know)
1. Streamsend requires their users to abide with CAN-SPAM
2. An unsubscribe link is required but double opt-in is not.
3. The domain information in Whois is hidden by a privacy service.
Would you whitelist such a domain?
Regards,
-sm
Re: senderbase rating - how to appeal?
Posted by Greg Troxel <gd...@ir.bbn.com>.
"Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <mi...@blacknight.ie> writes:
> Does anyone know how you can appeal or query a senderbase rating?
I resisted answering at first, because I'm perhaps a bit too cynical:
The way to appeal is to file a bug with spamassassin saying that
senderbase is bogus and ask that any senderbase rules in SA be
dropped.
I don't know that spamassassin pays attention to senderbase; if not this
probablly won't work. I say this, mostly joking, from my experience
with habeas. I have gotten spam on multiple occasions from senders that
are HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI, and complained to habeas - with absolutely
zero useful response. I filed a bug:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5902
and soon heard from habeas, who claimed that they revoked the listing of
that sender.
I then got more spam from a different habeas-accredited spammer, and
complained privately to complaints@habeas.com, and heard nothing back.
So the only rational conclusion seems to be that habeas accreditation is
bogus, and they only respond to public pressure. Perhaps that's not
true and I've been unlucky, but that's how it feels from my end.
Here's my previously private complaint. I predict that perhaps now it
will be paid attention to.
(If anyone thinks streamsend are other than spammers, please email me
privately and let me know)
Return-Path: <gd...@ir.bbn.com>
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on fnord.ir.bbn.com
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=1.7 required=1.0 tests=BAYES_50,HASHCASH_20,
HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02,HTML_MESSAGE,NO_RELAYS,
PRICES_ARE_AFFORDABLE,URIBL_GREY autolearn=no version=3.2.5
X-Spam-Report:
* -0.5 HASHCASH_20 Contains valid Hashcash token (20 bits)
* -0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message was not relayed via SMTP
* 0.0 PRICES_ARE_AFFORDABLE BODY: Message says that prices aren't too
* expensive
* 0.4 HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02 BODY: HTML has a low ratio of text to image area
* 1.6 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24 BODY: HTML: images with 2000-2400 bytes of words
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
* [score: 0.5008]
* 0.2 URIBL_GREY Contains an URL listed in the URIBL greylist
* [URIs: streamsend.com]
X-Original-To: gdt@ir.bbn.com
Delivered-To: gdt@ir.bbn.com
Received: by fnord.ir.bbn.com (Postfix, from userid 10853)
id 79F8152A5; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:58:52 -0400 (EDT)
X-Hashcash: 1:20:080629:complaints@habeas.com::nCSVyDXiQZdSlr1V:00000000000000000000000000000000000000001jsn
X-Hashcash: 1:20:080629:gdt@ir.bbn.com::QLD2PaPUAPhTusXX:00007z3
From: Greg Troxel <gd...@ir.bbn.com>
To: complaints@habeas.com
Cc: Greg Troxel <gd...@ir.bbn.com>
Subject: [Italian Pages] Uncover more of Italy for less than you would expect
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:58:52 -0400
Message-ID: <rm...@fnord.ir.bbn.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/22.1 (berkeley-unix)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="
--=-=-=
I received the following spam which SA tagged as HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI.
Please investigate and de-accredit streamsend.
--=-=-=
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path: <st...@mailengine.streamsend.com>
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on fnord.ir.bbn.com
X-Spam-Level: *****
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=5.3 required=1.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99,
HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02,HTML_MESSAGE,
PRICES_ARE_AFFORDABLE,RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100,RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100,
RAZOR2_CHECK,URIBL_GREY autolearn=no version=3.2.5
X-Spam-Report:
* -4.3 HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI RBL: Habeas Accredited Opt-In or Better
* [72.19.240.167 listed in sa-accredit.habeas.com]
* 0.2 URIBL_GREY Contains an URL listed in the URIBL greylist
* [URIs: streamsend.com]
* 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
* [score: 1.0000]
* 0.0 PRICES_ARE_AFFORDABLE BODY: Message says that prices aren't too
* expensive
* 0.4 HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02 BODY: HTML has a low ratio of text to image area
* 1.6 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24 BODY: HTML: images with 2000-2400 bytes of words
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 2.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level
* above 50%
* [cf: 76]
* 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/)
* 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50%
* [cf: 76]
* 0.4 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Original-To: gdt@ir.bbn.com
Delivered-To: gdt@ir.bbn.com
Received: from mailengine.streamsend.com (mailengine.streamsend.com [72.19.240.167])
by fnord.ir.bbn.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35EBB52A0
for <gd...@ir.bbn.com>; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 04:27:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mailengine.streamsend.com (PowerMTA(TM) v3.2r22) id hct3mg0cg8k5 for <gd...@ir.bbn.com>; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 00:56:43 -0700 (envelope-from <st...@mailengine.streamsend.com>)
X-Mailer: StreamSend2 - 80871
X-Mailer-Version: 2.0
X-Mailer-Environment: production
X-Report-Abuse-At: abuse@streamsend.com
X-Report-Abuse-Info: It is important to please include full email headers in the report
X-Campaign-ID: 868031
X-Streamsend2id: 80871++161801+868031+mailengine.streamsend.com
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 00:56:43 -0700
From: "Italian Pages" <in...@italianpages.co.uk>
To: gdt@ir.bbn.com
Subject: Uncover more of Italy for less than you would expect
Message-Id: <20...@fnord.ir.bbn.com>
X-Greylist: Delayed for 00:30:04 by milter-greylist-4.0 (fnord.ir.bbn.com [0.0.0.0]); Sun, 29 Jun 2008 04:27:20 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="===-=-="
--===-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Uncover more of Italy for less than you would expect
Finding just the right accommodation in just the right area is priceless. O=
ur wide range of properties includes luxury villas, charming farmhouses, co=
astal retreats and city apartments, mainly in Tuscany, but we also cover th=
e regions of Umbria, Le Marche and the Amalfi Coast.
Because we are Italian specialists we can offer the most authentic places t=
o stay at affordable prices=E2=80=A6 and we still have some availability fo=
r this summer.
Why not visit our website to discover more, then just contact us at: info@i=
talianpages.co.uk or by telephone on +44 (0) 207 873 2111.
~ The Italian Pages ~
Quality Italian Holiday Rentals for Less
www.italianpages.co.uk=20
Italian Pages is a partner company of The Villa Book.
If you do not wish to receive any further mailings, please click here to un=
subscribe http://app.streamsend.com/private/FMSM/Uas4IJE/unsubscribe/868031.
26 York Street, London, W1U 6PZ
Tel: +44 (0) 207 873 2111
--===-=-=
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title>Uncover more of Italy for less than you would expect</title>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
.style2 {
color: #666666;
font-size: 9.5px;
font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
}
.style5 {font-size: 9px}
body,td,th {
font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif;
font-size: 9px;
color: #666666;
}
body {
background-color: #FFFFFF;
}
a:link {
color: #999999;
}
a:visited {
color: #999999;
}
a:hover {
color: #333333;
}
a:active {
color: #999999;
}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table width="520" border="0" align="center">
<tr>
<td class>If you cannot view this email correctly, please follow this
link <a
href="http://app.streamsend.com/c/868031/29/Uas4IJE/FMSM?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.italianpages.co.uk%2Femail_0608"
target="_blank">http://www.italianpages.co.uk/email_0608</a><br />
<br />
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://www.italianpages.co.uk/email%5F0608/itp_1.gif"
alt="Uncover more of Italy for less than you would expect." width="520"
height="141" /><br />
<img src="http://www.italianpages.co.uk/email%5F0608/itp_2.gif"
width="520" height="209" /><br />
<a
href="http://app.streamsend.com/c/868031/31/Uas4IJE/FMSM?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.italianpages.co.uk"><img
src="http://www.italianpages.co.uk/email%5F0608/itp_3.gif" alt="~ The
Italian Pages ~" width="520" height="70" border="0" /></a><br />
<img src="http://www.italianpages.co.uk/email%5F0608/itp_4.gif"
width="520" height="180"/><br /> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<br />
<br />
Italian Pages is a partner company of The Villa Book.<br />
If you do not wish to receive any further mailings, <a
href="http://app.streamsend.com/private/FMSM/Uas4IJE/unsubscribe/868031">please
click here to unsubscribe</a>.<br />
<br />
<a
href="http://app.streamsend.com/private/FMSM/Uas4IJE/forward/868031">Forward
to a friend</a><br />
<br />
26 York Street, London, W1U 6PZ<br />Tel: +44 (0) 207 873
2111</div>
</div></td>
</tr>
</table>
<img src="http://app.streamsend.com/v/868031/Uas4IJE/FMSM"/>
</body>
</html>
--===-=-=--
--=-=-=--
Re: senderbase rating - how to appeal?
Posted by "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <mi...@blacknight.ie>.
On 4 Sep 2008, at 15:49, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>> Does anyone know how you can appeal or query a senderbase rating?
>
> I think senderbase is automatic.. You start spamming, you get on the
> list.
> You stop spamming, (eventually) you get off the list.
>
> You must be new to the 'net', so you get one free clue:
You must be new to the net as well or maybe you think you're "clever"?
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
US: 213-233-1612
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Re: senderbase rating - how to appeal?
Posted by Michael Scheidell <sc...@secnap.net>.
> Does anyone know how you can appeal or query a senderbase rating?
I think senderbase is automatic.. You start spamming, you get on the list.
You stop spamming, (eventually) you get off the list.
You must be new to the 'net', so you get one free clue:
As for querying, did you even try to google for senderbase?
www.google.com
Type in 'senderbase'. Big as life, 'Lookup'.
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
>|SECNAP Network Security
Winner 2008 Network Products Guide Hot Companies
FreeBSD SpamAssassin Ports maintainer
_________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap(r).
For Information please see http://www.spammertrap.com
_________________________________________________________________________