From jeffc@surbl.org Tue May 10 17:36:30 2005
From: Jeff Chan <jeffc@surbl.org>
To: discuss@lists.surbl.org
Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Feedback on adprofile.net wanted
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 08:36:42 -0700
Message-ID: <818639413.20050510083642@surbl.org>
In-Reply-To: <357174725.20050509223413@surbl.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3937952335279840281=="

--===============3937952335279840281==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Monday, May 9, 2005, 10:34:13 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
> adprofile.net reportedly appeared in a flowers.com ham as:

> <td align=3D"middle"><a href=3D"http://tx.adprofile.net/tx/r?CID=3D12&M=3D3=
&sid=3D800ABC123"><IMG height=3D90
> src=3D"http://a1234.g.akamai.net/f/1233/1234/1a/www.1800flowers.com/800f_as=
sets/images/flowers/images/banners/swift me
> too120X90.gif" width=3D"120" NOSEND=3D"1" border=3D"0"></a></td>

> Yet it's listed on WS by Bill Stearns.   This may be a false
> positive.  Does anyone have any more information about it?

> Catherine Hampton says it's not on her spam radar and others
> have said that they may be web spammers on guestbooks, wikis,
> etc. but not email spammers.  They seem to have some minor
> NANAS.

> Feedback wanted.  :-)

OK we know they appear in spam, but does adprofile.net appear in
any other ham?  Would folks with ham corpora please check this
one?

TIA,

Jeff C.
--
Don't harm innocent bystanders.


--===============3937952335279840281==--