Good evening, Jeff,
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Monday, August 30, 2004, 1:51:57 PM, Alex Broens wrote:
From: "Bill Landry" billl@pointshare.com
From: "William Stearns" wstearns@pobox.com
That said, I'm willing to consider removing them, especially if they're hitting false positives.
Well, let's wait to see what others think about this one. It's just
strange
that they come up so clean everywhere else.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=proflowers.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT...
Seems they've cleaned up their act a bit lately......
enough old NANAS entries: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=proflowers.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT...
I'd say remove, not whitelist... Valentine's day will show :)
I'd say whitelist it. They probably have many more legitimate uses than spam, therefore blocking it would cause more collateral damage than good. It also seems they're at least trying to cut back on spamming if we accept the decrease in recent NANAS sightings.
Bill Stearns do you mind much if I whitelist?
Unless there are any objections, I think that would probably be best, yes. Thank you, everyone for your input. Cheers, - Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- "This door is baroquen, please wiggle Handel. (If I wiggle Handel, will it wiggle Bach?)" -- Found on a door in the MSU music building (Courtesy of Slashdot) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- William Stearns (wstearns@pobox.com). Mason, Buildkernel, freedups, p0f, rsync-backup, ssh-keyinstall, dns-check, more at: http://www.stearns.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------