[SURBL-Discuss] RFC: SURBL inclusion policy

[Alex Broens]

Ryan Thompson wrote:
> Alex Broens wrote to SURBL Discussion list:
> 
>> Ryan Thompson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ryan Thompson wrote to Jeff Chan and SURBL Discussion list:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the feedback, Jeff!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey everybody,
>>>
>>> Does this look better?        http://ry.ca/geturi/results.html
>>>
>>> There are many improvements to the output. Even *I'm* impressed.
>>>
>>> It's getting close to feature freeze/release time again, methinks, to
>>> put these improvements into a stable release. So, if anyone has anything
>>> they'd like to see right away, please speak now.  :-)
>>
>>
>> Great!
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>> Why not add Spamhaus' XBL zone lookups?
> 
> 
> The thought had only briefly crossed my mind.  Is XBL really a good
> resource for SURBL classification? I thought XBL just listed exploited
> systems and open HTTP proxies. Hmm. I suppose I could just code it up
> and run it on a bunch of mail to see what happens... Or I could just use
> the combined sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org list, I suppose.

If a spammy looking msg comes thru an exploited system IMO it would 
qualify even more to be a SURBL inclusion as a genuine "marketer" would 
not be expected to use exploited machines, right?
(silently waiting for Jeff to bark at me :-)

Keeping the lookups separate would give us a bit more detail to evaluate.

Alex