cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Spam not picked up

Community Veteran
Posts: 38,208
Thanks: 898
Fixes: 54
Registered: 15-06-2007

Spam not picked up

Any thoughts on this - I have never been a customer of this company
Quote
Return-path: <feedback@info.directfoto.co.uk>
Envelope-to: ***@**.plus.com
Delivery-date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:55:08 +0000
Received: from [212.159.7.33] (helo=mx.ptn-ipin01.plus.net)
  by fhw-sunmxcore08.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1L8lRs-0003gQ-3W
  for ***@**.plus.com; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:55:08 +0000
Authentication-Results: mx.ptn-ipin01.plus.net; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
Received-SPF: None identity=pra; client-ip=87.106.94.167;
  receiver=mx.ptn-ipin01.plus.net;
  envelope-from="feedback@info.directfoto.co.uk";
  x-sender="feedback@info.directfoto.co.uk";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None identity=mailfrom; client-ip=87.106.94.167;
  receiver=mx.ptn-ipin01.plus.net;
  envelope-from="feedback@info.directfoto.co.uk";
  x-sender="feedback@info.directfoto.co.uk";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None identity=helo; client-ip=87.106.94.167;
  receiver=mx.ptn-ipin01.plus.net;
  envelope-from="feedback@info.directfoto.co.uk";
  x-sender="postmaster@mail.info.mx2.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-SBRS: 1.3
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah8GAPhbOUlXal6ncWdsb2JhbACBbX8EGI5+gUsBDAgNBxEiL65hjA+BdwKBDA
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5455"; a="5620422"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,723,1220223600";
  d="scan'208,217";a="5620422"
Received: from mail.info.directfoto.co.uk (HELO mail.info.mx2.com) ([87.106.94.167])
  by mx.ptn-ipin01.plus.net with ESMTP; 06 Dec 2008 00:55:07 +0000
Received: from mail pickup service by mail.info.mx2.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:55:09 +0000
thread-index: AclXPUlG9dLDhZeNSX6XGGwGErGtNg==
Thread-Topic: Credit Crunch Christmas Countdown!! 10% Off & FREE Delivery!!
Reply-To: "Directfoto" <feedback@info.directfoto.co.uk>
From: "Directfoto" <feedback@info.directfoto.co.uk>
To: <***@**.PLUS.COM>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:55:09 -0000
Message-ID: <FCCE3E7A3BBA4A4EA32E28CA6F388B1E@s15307733>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_8FA2_01C9573D.49468630"
X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Importance: normal
Priority: normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.4325
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2008 00:55:09.0121 (UTC) FILETIME=[494D8B10:01C9573D]
X-pn-pstn: Spam 0
Subject: Credit Crunch Christmas Countdown!! 10% Off & FREE Delivery!!

5 REPLIES
pierre_pierre
Grafter
Posts: 19,757
Registered: 30-07-2007

Re: Spam not picked up

I got a new one last night from a Travel agent in Glasgow, has a web site but not mentioned on the e-mail, only an 0845 number, was to an old address that I dont use now, obviously bought a mail list.  Giving a legal reminder later
Superuser
Superuser
Posts: 8,876
Thanks: 407
Fixes: 36
Registered: 06-04-2007

Re: Spam not picked up

Quote from: Oldjim
Any thoughts on this - I have never been a customer of this company
Quote
X-SBRS: 1.3

It looks to me as though this company could have acquired your address from another trader you've dealt with ("the third party offers" tick-box trick). The source IP belongs to Schund & Partners in Germany, who appear to be associated with 1&1.
The X-SBRS acore of 1.3 looks to me as heading towards a spam rating, though obviously it didn't quite make it. We've yet to receive any information on how to interpret the scanning information added to the headers.
Edit: insert missing end-of-quote tag.
David
Community Veteran
Posts: 38,208
Thanks: 898
Fixes: 54
Registered: 15-06-2007

Re: Spam not picked up

That is interesting but I don't think 1and1 are the source otherwise it would have come to my wife as she has the account with them.
Superuser
Superuser
Posts: 8,876
Thanks: 407
Fixes: 36
Registered: 06-04-2007

Re: Spam not picked up

Sorry, the meaning of my comments isn't clear. What I meant is that the message (presumably) came from the company named but the IP of the mail relay they used (what I referred to as the source) was one of Schund's.
However delving further into IP addresses suggests all might not be what it seems with the domain names quoted. I'm sure you intend to keep clear of them, and that is definitely the safest action for anyone to take.
David
Community Gaffer
Community Gaffer
Posts: 12,800
Thanks: 634
Fixes: 62
Registered: 04-04-2007

Re: Spam not picked up

Quote from: spraxyt
The X-SBRS acore of 1.3 looks to me as heading towards a spam rating, though obviously it didn't quite make it. We've yet to receive any information on how to interpret the scanning information added to the headers.

There's not really a clear cut way to ascertain how close to being spam a particular message is I'm afraid. The X-SBRS header is not the only attribute that's considered as part of the scoring AFAIK.
Notice this email sent to one of my accounts where the X-SBRS header is lower than 1.3 and the message gets marked as [-SPAM-].
X-SBRS: 0.3
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av//AHpzOElTRXyRZ2dsb2JhbAAMDINfVoN9EIRBhjUhGI54llg
X-IPAS: Level1
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5454"; a="982500"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,720,1220223600";
    d="scan'208";a="982500"
Received: from unknown (HELO static-host.145-124-69-83.tatintel.com) ([83.69.124.145])
    by mx.ptn-ipin04.plus.net with ESMTP; 05 Dec 2008 08:23:13 +0000
Received: from [83.69.124.145] by aspmx5.googlemail.com; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:23:15 +0300
Message-ID: <01c956cb$dd6c9380$917c4553@telobo>
From: =?koi8-r?B?88XSwcbJzcE=?= <telobo@quietman.net>
To: <marissa@plusnetmulticastingtrials.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:23:15 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
    format=flowed;
    charset="koi8-r";
    reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-pn-pstn: Spam 1
X-PN-Virus-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00)
X-PN-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00)
Subject: [-SPAM-] =?koi8-r?B?8M8g0M/Xz8TVINLB2tLBws/Uy8kg08HK1ME=?=

Now see this message where the X-SBRS header is higher than 1.3 yet the message still gets marked as [-SPAM-].
X-SBRS: 2.9
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApX/AAuCO0l7banWgWdsb2JhbAAMCgGBK4EtgV2CVoNjBohGAQEWIlWLQIIikUBWlx8
X-IPAS: Level1
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5456"; a="3475938"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,729,1220223600";
    d="scan'208,217";a="3475938"
Received: from unknown (HELO EKIWWURZ) ([123.109.169.214])
    by mx.pcl-ipin01.plus.net with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2008 16:02:41 +0000
Message-ID: <48e601c95885$415453f0$0a00080a@rejuvenatedlu2>
From: "Trent Preston" <rejuvenatedlu2@amtechmicro.com>
To: <marissa@plusnetmulticastingtrials.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 16:02:38 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
    boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C95885.4154761E"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-pn-pstn: Spam 1
X-PN-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00)
Subject: [-SPAM-] Life is too short to have a sh***y watch.

Bob Pullen
Plusnet Products Team
If I've been helpful then please give thanks ⤵