[SPAM-TAG] Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Possible large whitelist from DMOZ data

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Fri Oct 8 03:18:40 CEST 2004


On Thursday, October 7, 2004, 1:14:48 AM, Joe Wein wrote:
> [SP] = spammer
> [UC] = spammy, but not for SURBL
> [FP] = false positive
> [TBD] = to be determined

> 1800patches.com [SP]
>  - created in 1999
>  - 210 NANAS sightings
>  - Spamhaus SBL15666
>  - listed in [WS]
>  - received in spamfeed on 2004-09-21
> 
> adultlounge.com [FP?]
>  - created in 1997
>  - no NANAS listings
>  - NS blacklisted, SBL10966
>  - advertised in mail received in spamfeed on 2004-10-07 (nopostal address,
> sent from adtmarket.com domain)
> 
> adultloveline.com: [FP?]
>  - created in 2002
>  - 11 NANAS listings, most from 2002 and 2003
>  - listed on [WS]
>  - spam sent to a spamtrap, advertising someone's entry on the site
>  - sent via http://list.freemailpass.com
> 
> allofem.com [FP]
>  - created 2000
>  - NS blacklisted (conpuppy.com)
>  - listed on [WS]
>  - found in spamfeed on 2004-09-28 but may have been valid subscription by
> recipient
[...]

Hi Joe,
Can you provide a whitelist of these, now or when you finish
categorizing them?  For example, though you may heva removed it
from your outbound feed, webway.at seems to still be on WS and JP,
probably via Raymond:

/home/prolocation/black-prolocation-master:webway.at

but this site seems to be a legitimate political and
city/state portal.  My point is that we should probably
globally whitelist the FPs to catch them in all the lists.

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



More information about the Discuss mailing list