On Monday, June 21, 2004, 4:00:00 PM, Jesse Houwing wrote: > Brian Godette wrote:
>>Any particular reason why ccbill.com, a fairly common credit card processing >>site, would be listed other than as collateral damage? The two surbl hits >>plus UNIQ_ID nearly pushed this over the customer's trash level >>(/dev/null'd). [...] > ccbill does a very big lot of cerditcard transactions for almost every > sex site on the planet I had up till this point never seen a link to > their site from a reputable source, but a lot of these links from sites > that offer young pornsters on your screen.. > I think I even have them in the sare_redirect set, maybe I should remove > them from there aswell. If possible could you send me the message > (private) and I'll have a look. creditcard info etc can be removed. > btw I wouldn't really recommend scoring both WS_URI anf BE_URI so high, > as they're likely to trigger as a pair. I am whitelisting ccbill.com in SURBLs. ccbill.com themselves do not appear to be spammers, so we should not list them in SURBLs. We only want actual spam sites, i.e. spammer's actual destination content sites to be in SURBLs. For example, if a spammer used paypal or ebay that does not mean we'd want to block on those domains. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
