-----Original Message----- From: Patrik Nilsson [mailto:patrik@patrik.com] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 4:55 PM To: SURBL Discussion list Subject: RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Help classify quickinspirations.com
At 09:25 2004-09-30 -0700, Bret Miller wrote:
quickinspirations.com
When this one came up here, every person who received it classified it as spam when I asked and so it remains that in my mind.
And I still haven't seen any response actually arguing a real reason why quickinspirations.com should be whitelisted.
We're not just whitelisting domains because someone, who doesn't even bother to argue why, asks us to, do we?
"This is reported as spam, looks like spam and smells like spam, but we will whitelist it just because it might be caught by other antispam systems anyway" isn't a very convincing argument.
^LOL^ Oh I'm not comenting in that one ;)
I'll let Jeff explain it, because I still don't understand this one.
--Chris
On Thursday, September 30, 2004, 2:22:34 PM, Chris Santerre wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Patrik Nilsson [mailto:patrik@patrik.com] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 4:55 PM To: SURBL Discussion list Subject: RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Help classify quickinspirations.com
At 09:25 2004-09-30 -0700, Bret Miller wrote:
quickinspirations.com
When this one came up here, every person who received it classified it as spam when I asked and so it remains that in my mind.
And I still haven't seen any response actually arguing a real reason why quickinspirations.com should be whitelisted.
We're not just whitelisting domains because someone, who doesn't even bother to argue why, asks us to, do we?
"This is reported as spam, looks like spam and smells like spam, but we will whitelist it just because it might be caught by other antispam systems anyway" isn't a very convincing argument.
^LOL^ Oh I'm not comenting in that one ;)
I'll let Jeff explain it, because I still don't understand this one.
The question is whether they have legitimate uses.
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
At 17:32 2004-09-30 -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Thursday, September 30, 2004, 2:22:34 PM, Chris Santerre wrote:
From: Patrik Nilsson [mailto:patrik@patrik.com] We're not just whitelisting domains because someone, who doesn't even bother to argue why, asks us to, do we?
"This is reported as spam, looks like spam and smells like spam, but we will whitelist it just because it might be caught by other antispam systems anyway" isn't a very convincing argument.
^LOL^ Oh I'm not comenting in that one ;) I'll let Jeff explain it, because I still don't understand this one.
The question is whether they have legitimate uses.
I have no problem with that question - what I have a problem with is how we arrived at the answer that, yes - quickinspirations.com do have legitimate uses. I have still not seen *anything* that would lead to that answer.
All I've seen mentioned is a request to whitelist it, a request that didn't provide any information at all on why it should be whitelisted.
Everything else that I have seen indicates that this is a known spammer. And that includes the argument that RBLs will catch it anyway.
Patrik
-
Chris Santerre -
Jeff Chan -
Patrik Nilsson