Got email from vmobile.us today. It's listed on [WS] and [JP].
I checked the evidence and it's kind of flakey. The mail in question was mailing by wirelessdealernetwork.com.
WDN has 2 NANAS sightings to it, both dated 2004-09-19 and posted by the same guy. Registered on 2004-06-08, NS blacklisted, listed on SURBL [WS], [OB], [JP].
Whether the recipient opted-in or not is not quite clear, but he's telecom-related. It may be spam, it may be not.
In any case, vmobile.us was registered on 2004-05-12 and blacklisted by me on 2004-09-14. I shouldn't have blacklisted at that age without further evidence / checks. The NS is not blacklisted, no Google hits for spam other than my own listing. Oops! The domain of the owning company, usa-telecom.net, is two years old.
So I think [WS] should probably also unlist vmobile.us, as I will do.
My lesson: Just because the mailing list may be spammy and the TLD notorious doesn't mean a domain mentioned deserves listing on SURBL.
Joe
On Friday, October 15, 2004, 3:44:13 AM, Joe Wein wrote:
Got email from vmobile.us today. It's listed on [WS] and [JP].
I checked the evidence and it's kind of flakey. The mail in question was mailing by wirelessdealernetwork.com.
WDN has 2 NANAS sightings to it, both dated 2004-09-19 and posted by the same guy. Registered on 2004-06-08, NS blacklisted, listed on SURBL [WS], [OB], [JP].
Whether the recipient opted-in or not is not quite clear, but he's telecom-related. It may be spam, it may be not.
In any case, vmobile.us was registered on 2004-05-12 and blacklisted by me on 2004-09-14. I shouldn't have blacklisted at that age without further evidence / checks. The NS is not blacklisted, no Google hits for spam other than my own listing. Oops! The domain of the owning company, usa-telecom.net, is two years old.
So I think [WS] should probably also unlist vmobile.us, as I will do.
Looks like it got into WS via JP:
/home/prolocation/black-prolocation-master:vmobile.us
So when you remove it it should come out of WS also, unless Raymond also has it listed independently.
Can you clarify: should wirelessdealernetwork.com also come off the lists? Sounds like it should stay on as a legitimate spammer, whereas vmobile.us was somewhat more of an innocent bystander (non-spammer mentioned in spam). Does that sound right?
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
Jeff wrote:
Can you clarify: should wirelessdealernetwork.com also come off the lists? Sounds like it should stay on as a legitimate spammer, whereas vmobile.us was somewhat more of an innocent bystander (non-spammer mentioned in spam). Does that sound right?
That's correct.
Joe
P.S. My DMOZ FP checking for [JP] is still incomplete, but not forgotten. Just had too many other things on my plate...
On Friday, October 15, 2004, 6:43:35 AM, Joe Wein wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Can you clarify: should wirelessdealernetwork.com also come off the lists? Sounds like it should stay on as a legitimate spammer, whereas vmobile.us was somewhat more of an innocent bystander (non-spammer mentioned in spam). Does that sound right?
That's correct.
Joe
P.S. My DMOZ FP checking for [JP] is still incomplete, but not forgotten. Just had too many other things on my plate...
Thanks. There are definitely some FPs spotted by DMOZ hits.
I hope the other WS data source folks are also checking those hits. It doesn't matter that some of the hits would result in false negatives. Ignore those. But we need to find the ones that are definitely false positives and whitelist those (removal isn't enough in some cases, since they appear on other lists or could get re-listed).
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
-
Jeff Chan -
Joe Wein