Thanks Mariano, contacting you was next on my list. I'm having a hard time
figuring out these submissions. A lot of the sites won't come up for me to
check, I'm not sure why. I'll gather my thoughts and email you.
Also thanks Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz. I'll email you as well off list.
And if you're portuguese, like my wife, then you have my condolances. Maybe
we should add all of Greece's emails to the blacklist? ;)
Benfica!
--Chris (Yeah its not hockey, but its ok.)
>-----Original …
[View More]Message-----
>From: Mariano Absatz [mailto:surbl@lists.com.ar]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 6:07 PM
>To: SURBL Discussion list
>Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Freakin spanish and portuguese!
>
>
>El 6 Jul 2004 a las 16:37, Chris Santerre escribió:
>
>> Can anyone here read spanish or portuguese? I got loads of
>surbl submisions
>> that I can't understand for the life of me!! ARGH!
>
>Hi Chris... I read/speak Spanish (and can read Portuguese with
>quite some
>difficulty)... in fact, if you're referring to postings in
>http://www.rulesemporium.com/cgi-bin/uribl.cgi I'm responsible
>for quite a
>few postings in Spanish (I put my real name and my personal
>-and very abused-
>e-mail address in the form).
>
>Since I do know lots of spam from Argentina are spreading
>around the world
>I'd very much like that to be detected. Feel free to contact
>me off-list (to
>this address or to baby(a)baby.com.ar) about any doubt you may
>have... I don't
>have spare cycles, but I'd be happy to help you with anything I can.
>
>Regards.
>
>
>
>--
>Mariano Absatz
>El Baby
>----------------------------------------------------------
>You've got the brain of a four-year-old boy,
>and I'll bet he was glad to get rid of it.
> -- Groucho Marx
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org
>http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
[View Less]
Can anyone here read spanish or portuguese? I got loads of surbl submisions
that I can't understand for the life of me!! ARGH!
Chris Santerre
System Admin and SARE Ninja
http://www.rulesemporium.comhttp://www.surbl.org
'It is not the strongest of the species that survives,
not the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.'
Charles Darwin
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Brian Ipsen [mailto:bipsen-sender-6b92e3@andebakken.dk]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 3:21 PM
>To: SURBL Discussion list
>Subject: RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Help: kid pron.....help report
>
>
>Hi there,
>
>> Good grief I have been going thru the domains submitted into
>> SURBL and came
>> up with a nasty kiddie pron site. Anyone here have contact
>with Secret
>> Service or anyone else for that matter? I don't …
[View More]want the site
>> just shutdown,
>> I want these guys caught.
>
>Couldn't agree more!
>
>> *Warning, very disturbing site!*
>
>[link removed]
>
>> Address: 61.128.xxx.xxx resolved to [removed]
>> AS: 61.128.128.0/17 AS4134 [CN] Data Communications Bureau Beijing
>> Net 61.128.128-255 CHINANET-CQ [CN] @ns.chinanet.cn.net
>
>I did a small search at google:
>http://www.reportchildporn.com/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=13
>
>"HONG KONG, China (CNN) -- Authorities in the U.S. and U.K.
>say they are
>closing the net on online pedophiles, but the crackdown stops
>at China's
>borders where a legal bind is making child porn permissible.
>
>Perpetrators are walking free since neither mainland China nor
>Hong Kong
>have laws against downloading child pornography."
>
>This is from September 29th, 2003 - I hope the attitude has
>changed since
>then..
>
>I reported the page to a national organistation "Save the
>children" - I hope
>they are able to do something about it, at least contact the
>authorities in
>China.
>
Thanks Brian. I urge anyone who knows any authority to send them the info. I
mentioned to someone off list that I didn't want to get the domain shutdown
because I want to let the authorities see the site first. It is one of the
few things on the internet that greatly disturb me.
Thanks for forwarding the info again.
--Chris
[View Less]
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 6:22 PM
>To: SURBL Discuss
>Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Pleaae beta test ds.surbl.org - 6dos data
>
>
>On Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 3:05:17 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
>>I've excluded those three files
>> and the list is now about 87k entries.
>
>> The whitelist hits are now at 83:
>
>> http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/6dos.domains.whitelist-hits2
>
…
[View More]>Folks, please test the revised ds.surbl.org list.
>
>It may have lower spam detection and false positive rates now.
>
>Jeff C.
>
I'm looking for more FP data on [ds]. ANyone got domains for me?
--Chirs
[View Less]
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org]
>Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 4:55 AM
>To: SURBL Discussion list; SpamAssassin Users List
>Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: New SURBL additions
>
>
>On Friday, July 2, 2004, 6:06:16 AM, Don Newcomer wrote:
>> Here are my counts since 6:50 PM yesterday for all URI_RBL
>rules sorted by
>> spam and ham:
>
>> URI_RBL spam counts:
>
>> 3577 - AB_URI_RBL (5.0) - surbl.cf
&…
[View More]gt;> 2499 - DS_URI_RBL (0.33) - surbl.cf
>> 7282 - OB_URI_RBL (4.0) - surbl.cf
>> 4279 - SPAMCOP_URI_RBL (3.0) - surbl.cf
>> 5458 - WS_URI_RBL (3.0) - surbl.cf
>
>> URI_RBL ham counts:
>
>> 231 - DS_URI_RBL (0.33) - surbl.cf
>> 18 - OB_URI_RBL (4.0) - surbl.cf
>> 1 - SPAMCOP_URI_RBL (3.0) - surbl.cf
>> 29 - WS_URI_RBL (3.0) - surbl.cf
>
>> Interesting that AB_URI_RBL has no false positives yet... Still, we
>> haven't released spam filtering to our users yet so my Bayes
>training is
>> based pretty much on all of the SA rulesets' interpretation
>of spam (which
>> isn't necessarily a bad thing).
>
>Thanks much for the data Don, particularly the false positive
>hits. Does anyone else have any to share? If so please post
>them here.
>
>ab.surbl.org is based on SpamCop data plus some manual reports,
>as is sc.surbl.org, but ab has a different inclusion criteria
>of taking the top 500 most often reported (less www. duplicates
>and whitelists hits) over 7 days, whereas sc has an arbitrary
>inclusion threshold of 10 reports over 4 days. 1 FP for sc
>is pretty good, though zero is better. :-)
>
>ob is pretty impressive in terms of hit rate and relatively
>low FP rate, at least as a percentage of hits.
>
>Note that ds.surbl.org (based on 6dos data) is now up on 5 name
>servers so it may be ok to use on production servers for beta
>testing.
>
>Please note that I probably won't be able to check email for
>about a week so hopefully others will help answer SURBL
>questions, etc.
>
Please email me ANY FPs found in the ds.surbl.org list. I realy real realy
want to clean it up. I'm working with the source to get it better. Even
though the % isn't high. 99.99 percent accuracy is better ;)
--Chris
[View Less]
On Thursday, July 1, 2004, 11:47:37 AM, Don Newcomer wrote:
> Hat's off to the folks who brought out the new SURBL checks! Here's my top
> 15 rule hits over the past 20 hours and look where my 4 URIBLs come in:
> 18832 - HTML_MESSAGE (0.100) - 50_scores.cf
> 10296 - BAYES_99 (5.400) - 50_scores.cf
> 9810 - OB_URI_RBL (4.0) - surbl.cf
> 9403 - MIME_HTML_ONLY (0.320) - 50_scores.cf
> 8367 - WS_URI_RBL (3.0) - surbl.cf
> 7922 - CLICK_BELOW (0.100) - 50_scores.cf
> …
[View More]5220 - HTML_LINK_CLICK_HERE (0.100) - 50_scores.cf
> 5102 - SPAMCOP_URI_RBL (3.0) - surbl.cf
> 4470 - MIME_MISSING_BOUNDARY (1.838) - 50_scores.cf
> 4401 - MY_SHRT_IMG (0.848) - coding_html.cf
> 4285 - MK_BAD_HTML_05 (0.3) - coding_html.cf
> 4118 - NO_REAL_NAME (0.160) - 50_scores.cf
> 4111 - AB_URI_RBL (5.0) - surbl.cf
> 3887 - SARE_FROM_SPAM_WORD3 (0.100) - 70_sare_header.cf
> 3678 - MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET (0.561) - 50_scores.cf
Thanks much for the data and the compliments Don! I'm
forwarding your results to the SURBL discussion list.
It's interesting to see how well ob is detecting spams. My hat
is off in thanks to the OutBlaze folks for providing the data.
Still looking for anyone's spam detection rates and false
positive rates with all the lists:
sc.surbl.org - SpamCop spamvertised sites
ws.surbl.org - sa-blacklist, BigEvil and other data
ob.surbl.org - OutBlaze spamvertised sites
ab.surbl.org - AbuseButler spamvertised sites
ds.surbl.org (beta, 6dos data)
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
http://www.surbl.org/
[View Less]
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org]
>Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 3:39 PM
>To: 'SURBL Discussion list'
>Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] uptilt.com and their customers
>probably not
>s pammers
>
>
>On Thursday, July 1, 2004, 6:51:32 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
>> -1 here
>
>> I think private is better. Public reports of FPs I am +1.
>
>OK To me FPs and whitelisting are the same thing, but it
>sounds like if we …
[View More]did this you're saying it should be called
>"FP reporting" and not "whitelist reporting". Am I interpreting
>what you're saying correctly?
>
Yup. (I can be confusing sometimes.) Saying "Tell us who should be
whitelisted." vs. "Did someone get marked incorrectly?" are different, yet
the outcome is the same....sort of.
If we never listed ebay, then no one will ever report ebay as an fp.
CON: No proactive submissions. We may miss a popular domain.
PRO: We don't get tons of whitelist submissions. Taking all our time
checking them to see if they are legit instead of checking domains the
should be added.
--Chris
[View Less]