[SURBL-Discuss] Re: embedded image spams
jeffc at surbl.org
Tue May 31 10:38:29 CEST 2005
On Tuesday, May 31, 2005, 1:11:58 AM, Jeff Chan wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2005, 12:58:32 AM, Sean Sowell wrote:
>> OK. Again, as I agreed in my prior post, none of the spamvertised domains
>> in parentheses should be blacklisted.
>> The rest of the list is good though, and those domains should be added. Do
>> you want me to delete the extra stuff and re-post it?
> Yes, please, if you could mention the ones over the past couple
> days we'll look into them. Some of the ones you mentioned
> earlier are already blacklisted, so we'd like to analyze the
> unlisted recent ones to see how we can list them sooner.
By the way, just to sanity check things, these are the domains in
message body URIs and not headers, right? I ask because it's
somewhat unusual to have two sets of domains in a given spam,
and SURBLs are meant to operate on message body URIs and not
Don't harm innocent bystanders.
More information about the Discuss