[SURBL-Discuss] Discuss: WAS: SURBL+ Checker Submission

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Fri Dec 3 02:38:55 CET 2004


On Thursday, December 2, 2004, 2:10:29 PM, David Funk wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Chris Santerre wrote:

>> I stripped the header for this discussion. Is this a spam domain or an
>> attempt to poison SURBL. It is obviously a spam, but is domain bogus?
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> *SNIP*
>>
> [snip..]
>> >href=3D"http://hesatosser.com.info/?wid=3D100005">H=
>> >ERE</a><br><br>
> [snip..]
>> ><a href=3D"http://hesatosser.com.info/?wid=3D100005">
>> >Get it now
> [snip..]
>> > href=3D"http://http://hesatosser.com.com/nomore.html">Go
>> >here</a> to stop=

> Neither, it's broken spam-ware. The actual pill-spam-site
> is "hesatosser .com" (which is listed in SURBL ;).

I agree.  Probably user error in using spamware, or coding
problems in it.

> "*.com.com" is a valid domain name, belongs to CNet, clearly
> not spam. "*.com.info" isn't even a valid domain at all.

Yep, and com.com and most other cnet domains we could find
are already whitelisted.

Jeff C.
--
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."



More information about the Discuss mailing list