On Wednesday, September 8, 2004, 8:11:49 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:

...

From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] 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.

What the (#&@? So we got a list of ALL domains that were in FP reported emails. Instead of JUST the ones that actually caused the FP???????

*sigh* Well there's a few hours of my life I won't get back!

--Chris

Which is why I sent this follow up message immediately after posting the list the first time:

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 20:58:21 -0700 From: Jeff Chan jeffc@surbl.org To: Jeff Chan jeffc@surbl.org Cc: SURBL Discuss discuss@lists.surbl.org Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Need help checking FP list from Theo

Correction: not all of those are necessarily FPs, but all had appeared in messages that had some FPs. In other words some are FPs and some are not. All come from ham, so we should probably whitelist them all, but checking would be appreciated.

Can we divide these up to check?

Jeff C.

This explains that they're not all listed but appeared in hams.

Jeff C.