On Friday, May 27, 2005, 4:13:22 PM, Robert Menschel wrote:
> Hello Jeff,
> Friday, May 27, 2005, 1:06:46 AM, you wrote:
JC>> On Thursday, May 26, 2005, 5:58:02 PM, Robert Menschel wrote:
JC 2. Would they be appropriate to whitelist (i.e. exclude from
JC listing) in SURBLs?
>>> Unlikely
Hello Jeff,
Friday, May 27, 2005, 1:06:46 AM, you wrote:
JC> On Thursday, May 26, 2005, 5:58:02 PM, Robert Menschel wrote:
JC>>> 2. Would they be appropriate to whitelist (i.e. exclude from
JC>>> listing) in SURBLs?
>> Unlikely, since the web sites mentioned in the emails are rarely the
>> same
On Thursday, May 26, 2005, 5:58:02 PM, Robert Menschel wrote:
JC>> 2. Would they be appropriate to whitelist (i.e. exclude from
JC>> listing) in SURBLs?
> Unlikely, since the web sites mentioned in the emails are rarely the
> same as the From address or routing server. However, the primary web
>
Hello Jeff,
Wednesday, May 25, 2005, 10:42:57 PM, you wrote:
JC> On Wednesday, May 25, 2005, 9:19:43 PM, Robert Menschel wrote:
>> Just a quick note that the SARE whitelist rules file has been updated.
>> Documentation at http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm#whitelist
>> Bob Menschel
JC> A cou
On Wednesday, May 25, 2005, 9:19:43 PM, Robert Menschel wrote:
> Just a quick note that the SARE whitelist rules file has been updated.
> Documentation at http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm#whitelist
> Bob Menschel
A couple questions:
1. Are these envelope senders or URI domains?
2. Woul
Just a quick note that the SARE whitelist rules file has been updated.
Documentation at http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm#whitelist
Bob Menschel
