Mike Cardwell wrote:
> Graeme Fowler wrote:
>> On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 16:37 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>> One of the important additions I made in the code was the addition of
>>> checking against a whitelist database to eliminate false positives.
>> Small nit: that doesn't eliminate false positives. It eliminates
>> returning positive results against hosts, addresses or URIs in the
>> database - not the same thing at all.
>
> *Every* single domain name that it caught on my system yesterday failed
> to fall within their listing policy:
>
> existsshaded.com
> dozencourier.com
> orecopper.com
> bedcalab.com
> anrosite.com
> searchvisiontech.com
> cluttlergroup.com
> dogsswim.com
> phosphatefarmhouse.com
> jadedistinguished.com
>
> None of those are were created within the last 5 days. Most of them were
> nowhere near 5 days.
However, every single one of them either has fake whois data, is a
questionable marking email source, has had its dns servers re-delegated
due to spam, or is a click farming operation.
If they keep on listing the domains that no one wants to hear from past
5 days, I don't mind ;)
--
The Exim Manual
http://www.exim.org/docs.html
http://docs.exim.org/current/
