mailing list archives
From: Chris Conn <cconn () b2b2c ca>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 10:31:08 -0400
On 2013-04-09 10:27, Chris Conn wrote:
it seems that many large providers are using cloudmark services. As far as I can tell: their policy is unclear, they
can hardly be reached, mails to support are bouncing (delayed, then bounce).
yes, the mailserver from one of our customers was blocked and this was OK and rightful, because they had a problem
(cracked account). After the problem was resolved we started removing their IPv4 address from blacklists and almost all
lists removed the ban immediately.
cloudmark CSI service (reset request form) wants a form to be filled ... and they claim that they send out an email ... but
it doesn't make its way to my inbox (no, no filters ...)
and support can't be reached.
Where are the good old times when the 'net was controlled by techs and not by lawyers?
I can't recommend cloudmark.
Your experience does not mirror mine at all. I have less than 30
minutes of wait time for any support case, and they are few and far
between. Reliability is high and FP rate is low. I have no idea what
your reference to lawyers pertains to, however the only issue we have
ever had was for them to take our money when we renewed for the
Maybe they cater to smaller providers more efficiently.
- cloudmark? Martin Hotze (Apr 09)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: cloudmark? Chris Conn (Apr 09)
- Re: cloudmark? Martin Hotze (Apr 09)