-----Original Message----- From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 4:54 AM To: SURBL Discussion list Cc: postmaster@outblaze.com Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Need help checking FP list from Theo
On Monday, September 6, 2004, 11:10:50 PM, Ryan Thompson wrote:
bis1bp.com FP: Hmm... Domain doesn't resolve thanks
to their not
being any authoritative nameservers. It's 87 days old. If this was reallyfound in ham,
I'd say de-list.I found this one in the original message and it's part of a security mailing list mention of a phishing site. Removing from whitelist.
http://seclists.org/lists/bugtraq/2004/Jun/0268.html
It no longer resolves but should be fine to block on IMO.
Jeff C.
Dang it, I replied to a piece of this thread out of order :)
I'll try to reply to all of them now...
I am +1 for whitelisting .edu. Heck I'm borderline skiplisting them in the hard code.
Once we get these all settled, I'd like to find how they all got in here in the first place! seti.org being listed put up red flags for me! Who put that in here? Even if it was me, I should be flogged!
Hold on to your chairs, but I agree with Jeff! :) Cleanup is great, but how do things like yale and seti get listed in the first place????
-_Chris
Chris Santerre wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 4:54 AM To: SURBL Discussion list Cc: postmaster@outblaze.com Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Need help checking FP list from Theo
On Monday, September 6, 2004, 11:10:50 PM, Ryan Thompson wrote:
bis1bp.com FP: Hmm... Domain doesn't resolve thanks
to their not
being any authoritative nameservers. It's 87 days old. If this was reallyfound in ham,
I'd say de-list.I found this one in the original message and it's part of a security mailing list mention of a phishing site. Removing
from whitelist.
http://seclists.org/lists/bugtraq/2004/Jun/0268.html
It no longer resolves but should be fine to block on IMO.
Jeff C.
Dang it, I replied to a piece of this thread out of order :)
I'll try to reply to all of them now...
I am +1 for whitelisting .edu. Heck I'm borderline skiplisting them in the hard code.
Once we get these all settled, I'd like to find how they all got in here in the first place! seti.org being listed put up red flags for me! Who put that in here? Even if it was me, I should be flogged!
Hold on to your chairs, but I agree with Jeff! :) Cleanup is great, but how do things like yale and seti get listed in the first place????
I'm totally shocked that yale and seti could even be considered "spammy"
And can I help with the flogging? <BOFH>
8*))
-Doc (SA/SARE/SURBL - Ninja)
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, 9:18:31 AM, Doc Schneider wrote:
I'm totally shocked that yale and seti could even be considered "spammy"
And can I help with the flogging? <BOFH>
Because they appeared in a ham does not mean they're spammy. Sometimes it just means that some other URI in that message got tagged.
E.g., a message like:
"I buy my pills from walgreens.com (a U.S. brick and mortar pharmacy) not randompillspammer.com."
could get tagged since it mentions a spammer. But it doesn't mean walgreens.com is necessarily a spammer.
Similarly seti and yale probably got mentioned along with a listed record.
Jeff C.
-
Chris Santerre -
Doc Schneider -
Jeff Chan