On 7/3/09, Petros Kolyvas pk@shiftfocus.ca wrote:
On 2009-07-04, at 12:39 AM, SURBL Role surbl.role@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/3/09, Petros Kolyvas pk@shiftfocus.ca wrote:
On 7/3/09, Petros Kolyvas pk@shiftfocus.ca wrote:
To be clear, the owner of the phished brand usually makes very thorough efforts to contact the site owner or web host to let them know about it and to ask them to correct the problem.
If you've been reading the discussion, you'll know that's not the case in this case - and further points that our site was never used for any phishing.
That's not correct. The site reportedly appeared in phishing messages.
To be clear, had some due diligence been done it would be noted that it was the shared server which was compromised and not the domain itself. I would suggest that some research would show that many domains on that shared host are on this particular blacklist and that it had nothing to do with the domains themselves. Which furthers my point that the domain owners, in this particular case, are being unfairly punished when a more direct solution — ie. contacting a shared host that has produced a large number of compromised domain s — would have greater effect.
The domain would not have been listed unless the site appeared in phishing messages.
Please re-read what I wrote above. Read it again. Then read it once more. There are people who can help if English comprehension is something that needs to be worked on.
What you wrote is incorrect. Your site appeared in phishes.