-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Matthew Wilson writes:
Folks,
If I were a spammer monitoring this list's traffic (there have got to be some), I would buy up a bunch of domains that were registered a few years ago but expired, throw up a bunch of bogus "legitimate looking" content,
yep, the google-spammers are doing that already.
send out a bunch of spam using those "legitimate" domain names, and then complain to Jeff et al. that SURBL is generating false positives. According to current policies, my sites would be whitelisted, "yay!".
this is a possible problem, alright. But as far as I can see Jeff has been saying to *check* the possible false positive domains, not to just blindly whitelist them.
- --j.
It's my opinion that you have to draw the line somewhere because of this, and hosting entities who don't have compliant AUPs or enforce their AUPs with any speed need to be listed somehow.
Jeff, you really should consider creating a separate "semi-legitimate" list for entities such as greatnow.com, if only to appease those of us who don't necessarily keep often-updated private blacklists and whitelists for SURBL queries/hits.
Thanks, Matthew Wilson.
-----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces@lists.surbl.org [mailto:discuss-bounces@lists.surbl.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Chan Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 1:29 PM To: SURBL Discuss Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com
On Friday, October 22, 2004, 11:27:25 AM, Jeff Chan wrote:
There's a difference between removing the entire list and checking them carefully before using them.
We can use the data if we check it first.
Can you post or link the list so we can all see the data and comment on it?
Jeff C.
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss