On Saturday, March 4, 2006, 6:29:27 AM, Rob McEwen wrote: > I have an e-mail address of a former employee of a client of mine that I use > (with permission) to monitor spam since this address receives MUCH spam. Of > course, it is within the realm of possibility that some of this was actually > subscribed to, but most of it is spam. Therefore, this account has value to > me, but is not to be confused with a real spam trap.
> Today, this address received a spam which claimed that it was subscribed to, > but it... > (1) looks spammy > (2) contains spammy obfuscation... if they are so legit, why do they have to > obfuscate? That has always been a red flag > (3) and... the spam contains threats to anyone who might blacklist them (and > I take offense at the tone of these threats... especially since the text of > the actual thread is full of obfuscated words... wouldn't you take offense?) > Of course, if my recipient address was a true spamtrap address, this would > be a no-brainer... but since it wasn't a true spamtrap address, am I > actually putting myself at legal risk if I were to list this spammer on > SURBL and URIBL? FWIW Outblaze already blacklisted this domain on ob.surbl.org. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
