[SURBL-Discuss] Help classify quickinspirations.com

Patrik Nilsson patrik at patrik.com
Fri Oct 1 20:42:43 CEST 2004

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 at 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.


More information about the Discuss mailing list