SPEWS had the whole UUNET sub listed along with us.
The point about case closed is that SPEWS have not denied having done it.
There is absolutely nobody who has provided any contrary evidence
whatsoever.
I am sorry but simple gainsaying does not constitute an argument here.
If you refuse to believe any of SPEWS victims it is easy to maintain your
position that no blacklist ever did anything bad ever.
Phill
-----Original Message-----
From: wayne [mailto:wayne(_at_)midwestcs(_dot_)com]
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 11:40 AM
To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML
In
<CE541259607DE94CA2A23816FB49F4A311003C(_at_)vhqpostal6(_dot_)verisign(_dot_)co
m> "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
BL "Listing all
of UUNET?"
- flat out false. No even remotely respectable blacklist has
ever done so.
SPEWS listed VeriSign labs because it was on a UUNET address.
Case closed, no appeal.
SPEWS makes a point of never justifying itself to anyone,
if they want
to correct any statement they believe false they can speak
for themselves.
Uh, the claim that spews listed one domain means that spews listed ALL
UUNET domains? And this is a "case closed, no appeal" evidence of
such an action by spews?
I realize that verisign is very close to your heart but, personally, I
don't consider them to be the whole world.
Could you give us some help in tracking down this particular spews
listing? What did it say? What IP addresses were involved? (The IP
addresses can be used to see if other BLs also reported spam from
them.)
-wayne
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg