Related Posts

Update on Yahoo and the PBL

Last week I requested details about Yahoo rejections for IPs pointing to the PBL when the IP was not on the PBL. A blog reader did provide me with extremely useful logs documenting the problem. Thank you!
Based on my examination of the logs, this appears to be a problem only on some of the Yahoo! MXs. In fact, in the logs I was sent, the email was rejected from 2 machines and then eventually accepted by a third.
I have forwarded those logs onto Yahoo who are looking into the issue. I have also talked with one of the Spamhaus volunteers and Spamhaus is aware of the issue as well.
The right people are looking at the issue and Spamhaus and Yahoo are both working on fixing this.
Thanks for the reports and for the logs.

Read More

Garbage in… garbage out

Ken Magill (hereafter known as Mr. Stupid Poopypants) has a follow up article today on his article from last week about the Obama campaign’s mailing practices. While poking Dylan a bit, his message is that marketers really need to look harder at double opt-in.

Read More

7th circuit court ruling in e360 v. Spamhaus

Mickey has some commentary and the full ruling up on Spamsuite. In short the appeals court affirmed the default judgment, vacated the judgment on damages and remanded the case back to the lower court to determine appropriate damages.
There are a couple bits of the ruling that stand out to me and that I think are worthy of comment.
Spamhaus made a very bad tactical decision by initially answering and then withdrawing that answer. The appeals court ruled that action signaled that Spamhaus waived their right to argue jurisdiction and that they submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. Based on this, the appeals court upheld the default judgment against Spamhaus. Not necessarily the outcome any of us wanted, but that doesn’t set any precedent for future cases unless defendants answer and then withdraw the answer. Specifically on page 12 of the ruling the court says:

Read More