27 Apr
2005
27 Apr
'05
12:02 a.m.
On Tuesday, April 26, 2005, 7:56:17 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
Jeff said: "It is possible to blacklist nina.18.to but not 18.to if nina is owned by spammers but 18 is not."
Why not then add certain redirectors to the SURBL lists where the redirector is deemed to NOT be found in hams? Specifically, I'm referring to situations where we could list redirect.somedomain.com but NOT list somedomain.com
Rob McEwen
Sure, if we find a redirector owned and operated purely by spammers (as opposed to clueless ISPs, etc.) then we can certainly blacklist it.
So far I don't recall seeing any that fit that category, but if spammers do start running their own redirectors we an absolutely blacklist them.
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."