Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: cloudmark?
From: Chris Conn <cconn () b2b2c ca>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 10:31:08 -0400

On 2013-04-09 10:27, Chris Conn wrote:

Hi,

<rant>
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.
</rant>



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 umpteenth time.

Maybe they cater to smaller providers more efficiently.

Chris



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
  • cloudmark? Martin Hotze (Apr 09)
    • <Possible follow-ups>
    • Re: cloudmark? Chris Conn (Apr 09)
    • Re: cloudmark? Martin Hotze (Apr 09)
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]