From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Monday, May 17, 2004, 4:57:36 PM, jdow jdow wrote:
> > From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> IMO the correct answer is to not list any partially legitimate
> >> domains, at least in SURBLs, and to get gray domains (those
> >> referenced in both spam and ham) to fix any spam problems they
> >> may have.
>
> > Which means the entire black list phenomenon is worthless because
> > spammer domains will sell space to "popular legitimate businesses"
> > as a means of getting off the black lists. I believe this is already
> > being done in a few noteworthy cases.
>
> That is economically illogical. Why would any legitimate company
> want to be hosted at a spamhaus when it means they would likely
> get blocked?
Why are we having this discussion? I believe that answers the question.
Didn't AT&T buy some legitimate (billing?) services from a spam house?
Probably they went with "lowest bidder".
{^_^}
