Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #225732 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-08-02 09:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2020-08-02 09:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: off-topic: URIBL_BLACK "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-08-02 09:40 +0200
| From | "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-02 09:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: off-topic: URIBL_BLACK |
| Message-ID | <AzgL8-37A-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi, 황병희 wrote: > X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.4 required=4.0 [...]URIBL_BLACK[...] > [...] > i got URIBL_BLACK score in SpamAssassin. Grrr. Why are spam slanderers and virus scammers allowed to interfere with Debian ? Debian 10 installs a Firefox which accuses Debian ISOs of being malware and now our mailing list asks URIBL about the reputation of people's ISPs. http://uribl.com/faq.shtml "Can you tell me why my domain is blacklisted? No. [...]" I did not find a page yet where they would sell permissions to spam. But an honest libel service is nearly as bad as a bribable one. We cannot stop them, but we should not support them by including their info in spam decisions of Debian lists. Have a nice day :) Thomas
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web