[SURBL-Discuss] Need help checking FP list from Theo

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Thu Sep 9 00:51:48 CEST 2004


On Wednesday, September 8, 2004, 8:11:49 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
>>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc at 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 at surbl.org>
> To: Jeff Chan <jeffc at surbl.org>
> Cc: SURBL Discuss <discuss at 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.



More information about the Discuss mailing list