First 5000 Revolut Premium = Nothing when you don't do basic SPAM checks


#1

I’m so disappointed, I was one of your first premium members and expressed interest in numerous of your emails about wanting to invest. All your emails asking for me to sign up to seedr, fill out forms, I completed. There was no indication in these emails about date or time, just that you should await an email.

Out of curiosity as it had been so long I looked in to it and realised all your emails were sent from Revolut and all failed a basic SPAM check and thus were not received.

The email you sent with subject: Our crowdfunding campaign is live! Your priority-access starts now.

Content analysis details: (5.1 points, 3.0 required)

pts rule name description


1.3 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
[Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?52.36.9.190]
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no
trust
[52.36.9.190 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.1 URI_HEX URI: URI hostname has long hexadecimal sequence
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.7 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts
0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%
[score: 0.5000]
1.2 KAM_REALLYHUGEIMGSRC RAW: Spam with image tags with ridiculously huge
http urls
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author’s
domain
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature

Your following email: You have less than 24 hours of priority-access to our investment page!

Content analysis details: (3.7 points, 3.0 required)

pts rule name description


-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no
trust
[52.36.9.190 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.1 URI_HEX URI: URI hostname has long hexadecimal sequence
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%
[score: 0.4994]
0.7 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts
1.2 KAM_REALLYHUGEIMGSRC RAW: Spam with image tags with ridiculously huge
http urls
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author’s
domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Spam-Flag: YES


Why were no basic SPAM checks not done on the emails especially of this importance? Below is your pre-email with subject: “Pre-register now” which passed all basic checks.

Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 3.0 required)

pts rule name description


-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no
trust
[52.36.9.190 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.1 URI_HEX URI: URI hostname has long hexadecimal sequence
0.7 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts
0.0 HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_06 BODY: HTML has a low ratio of text to image area
0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%
[score: 0.4986]
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author’s
domain
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.0 LOTS_OF_MONEY Huge… sums of money
X-Spam-Flag: NO


As you clearly see, the main reason your emails did not pass a Spam check was because: “Spam with image tags with ridiculously huge http urls”.

Now I know people are immediately going to say “why didn’t you whitelist Revolut?”, yes, possibly I should have if it was that important, but based on the fact I’d been getting revolut emails just fine in the past, I was not to expect a sudden change in email behaviour and no doubt many others were effected by this.

There’s nothing I can do about this now, I’d be deluded to think there is, but that doesn’t mean I’m not left with a very bitter taste over the situation as an original premium member.


#2

Thanks for sharing your experience !

Might have happened to a number of users.

I am sure :r: will take that seriously and work on a solution.

Sorry that you, as one of the first premium members, experienced it as quite negative with the emails.

Best,