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

Jeff Chan jeffc at
Tue May 24 02:51:55 CEST 2005

On Monday, May 23, 2005, 2:46:32 PM, List User wrote:
>>What about the WDRP spam apparently from them?  Is that possibly
>>legitimate looking?
>>From: "WDRP Compliance" <wdrp at>
>>To: Domains at
>>  May 25, 2004
>> View Contact Data: <>
>>Jeff C.

>         I thought I had made clear my beliefs about the "competence" of
> eNom's procedures and personnel:-)

>         Anyway, this is clearly not spam, but a misdirected - yet valid
> communication for domain registration data checking.  Clearly sent to
> the wrong person, but it isn't selling anything - it doesn't even link
> to any other page except ICANN's rules about data verification.  It is
> downright well behaved - no links to their own services, no pleas to
> extend the registration period - one of the best I've seen of all that
> I've gotten from any registrar I've used.  Just in typical fashion, they
> sent it to the wrong place:-)  Do note that it is also typical eNom in
> that it functions by a "negative" option - do nothing and they say they
> will assume all the data is good;  I suspect that this is *not* acceptable
> to ICANN (since if the contact data were false, the notice would likely
> be ignored and hence no checking actually performed) - but it fits perfectly
> the eNom model of let the customer be responsible for reporting and fixing
> all errors.

Thanks.  I'm whitelisting as a legitimate
if clueless and spam-friendly registrar eNom.  Mails mentioning
their domains should not be tagged as spam even if they send out
an occasional misdirected message themselves, because we don't
want ham used for legitimate domain registrar operations

Bob Menschel,
Please note that this type of domain should not be listed on
SURBLs.  Only domains that never appear in ham should be listed.
What we want to list are spam gang URI domains.

Jeff C.
Don't harm innocent bystanders.

More information about the Discuss mailing list