[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