After looking at NANAS hits for FPs, in particular the reporting
parties and the destination addresses, I have a theory about some
of the FPs. I think some anti-spam zealots may be deliberately
subscribing spam traps, either their own or third parties' like
Outblaze, to sites with open subscriptions. If so, they're
probably doing it to draw attention to the fact that the sites
have unconfirmed subscriptions.
Or they could be cracker/spammer types trying to use them to
poison the spamtrap feeds and therefore diminish the usefulness
of data from them. This type of poisoning is a distinct
possibility since it would appear that the "spams" (usually
subscription newsletters) do appear to come from those sites
or senders.
I think we should consider the possibilities that either
type of people (or even bots) could be adding otherwise
legitimate sites to traps this way. (It would be trivially
easy to write a spider to subscribe spamtrap or their own
address to open subscription sites, and given some of the
repeated reporters in NANAS, someone may have done that.)
Whatever their reasons, we should not fall into this trap
and list otherwise legitimate sites just because they have
open subscriptions. Doing so probably diminishes the
usefulness of SURBLs by increasing false positives.
Comments,
Jeff C.
--
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."