[SURBL-Discuss] Notification of Blacklist Status

SURBL Role surbl.role at gmail.com
Sat Jul 4 08:43:21 CEST 2009


On 7/3/09, Petros Kolyvas <pk at shiftfocus.ca> wrote:

>  On 2009-07-04, at 12:39 AM, SURBL Role <surbl.role at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  > On 7/3/09, Petros Kolyvas <pk at shiftfocus.ca> wrote:
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>> On 7/3/09, Petros Kolyvas <pk at shiftfocus.ca> wrote:
>  >>>>
>  >>>>> To be clear, the owner of the phished brand usually makes very
>  >>>>> thorough efforts to contact the site owner or web host to let them
>  >>>>> know about it and to ask them to correct the problem.
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>> If you've been reading the discussion, you'll know that's not the
>  >>>> case
>  >>>> in this case - and further points that our site was never used for
>  >>>> any
>  >>>> phishing.
>  >>>
>  >>> That's not correct.   The site reportedly appeared in phishing
>  >>> messages.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> To be clear, had some due diligence been done it would be noted that
>  >> it was the shared server which was compromised and not the domain
>  >> itself. I would suggest that some research would show that many
>  >> domains on that shared host are on this particular blacklist and that
>  >> it had nothing to do with the domains themselves. Which furthers my
>  >> point that the domain owners, in this particular case, are being
>  >> unfairly punished when a more direct solution — ie. contacting a
>  >> shared host that has produced a large number of compromised domain
>  >> s —
>  >> would have greater effect.
>  >
>  > The domain would not have been listed unless the site appeared in
>  > phishing messages.
>
>
> Please re-read what I wrote above. Read it again.  Then read it once
>  more. There are people who can help if English comprehension is
>  something that needs to be worked on.

What you wrote is incorrect.  Your site appeared in phishes.


More information about the Discuss mailing list