(was: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] whitelist:

List Mail User track at
Mon May 23 18:01:36 CEST 2005

>Hello Jeff,
>(sent one copy without attachment, and from not-listed address; that
>copy can be deleted without forwarding to list. sorry)
>Monday, May 23, 2005, 3:00:09 AM, you wrote:
>JC> Message: 7
>JC> Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 00:57:48 -0700
>JC> From: Jeff Chan <jeffc at>
>JC> Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] whitelist:
>JC> To: Joseph Burford <josephb at>
>JC> Cc: SURBL Discussion list <discuss at>
>JC> Message-ID: <127069243.20050523005748 at>
>JC> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>JC> On Sunday, May 22, 2005, 11:39:05 PM, Joseph Burford wrote:
>>>> Since you say they're whitehats, I'll go ahead and whitelist them in
>>>> SURBLs.  Of minor interest one of their nameservers is on SORBS:
>>> is used by / for their
>>> customer DNS services.
>>> Regards,


	I've been watching this discussion without speaking up for
a couple of days now.  the domain name-services is very popular with
spammers (they seem to be lax in throwing them off), but it has *at
least* 20x as many legitimate customers as "bad guys";  That said, I
do always double-check when I see it turn up in a domain I'm already
looking at - It is a good sign if you already have another reason for
checking a domain, but they themselves are mostly extremely clean.  The
big problem is the domain is operated by eNom for others, and we all
probably are aware of the standard eNom procedure for complaints (i.e.
forward it to the spammer and ask him to "fix" it) - this makes them
look disproportionately bad.

	The domain itself doesn't belong on any SURBLs
(though it does exist within lots of Spamhaus and SPEWS records) or even
on URIBL's greylist (though maybe SPEWS should L2 them and eNom itself).
They have far, far too many legitimate customers.

	Just my opinion/experience.

	Paul Shupak
	track at

More information about the Discuss mailing list