“Pheromones are defined as substances which are secreted to the outside by an individual and received by a second individual of the same species, in which they release a specific reaction, for example, a definite behavior, or a developmental process.” — Karlson and Luscher, 1959.
If you change the definition, you could conceivable call virtually any chemical a pheromone. If you stick with the “same species” requirement you are required to show that a chemical or mixture of chemicals has an effect on hormones, because an effect on hormones during a developmental process is required to link the mixture to any behavioral affect.
Those who have been exposed to rodent (e.g., hamster) vaginal secretions would reinforce use of the original definition requiring species specificity, as would most people who have been exposed to the concentrate of what has become known as copulins.
I am interested in seeing the reason that any of the chemicals on any master list are suspected to be human pheromones. Without some indication in this regard, the list is merely a list of chemicals (e.g., on the research section of a forum). Not that there’s anything wrong with that. You must start somewhere. For example, in 1982 and in this post, I started with the 1959 definition.