On Sunday, August 29, 2004, 1:41:43 AM, Alex Broens wrote:
From: "Raymond Dijkxhoorn" raymond@prolocation.net
For example, obviously, there are going to be many Fortune 500 companies
who
will get away with the worst kinds of harvesting of e-mails from web
sites
for spamming. Surely, most of the time, their legal departments will
prevent
this because their "deep pockets" cannot afford to pursue such risky business practices. But in the event that one DOES do this, we would obviously not want to include them in SURBL, even with their bad
behavior.
What are your thoughts about leveling the lists, so for example we can make a new evil.surbl.org, where we also state 'dont use this at home, unless...' then we can shift those 'grey area domains' to the new list and we all can be happy.
There will be more and more trying to be gray, and its not like a hardcore spammer can send out 1 legit mailing and be whitelisted all at once...
Supported.... I'd even say ws.subrl.org should be this list..... and let spamcop and the rest be more lenient. Adding another list would probably just complicate the choice, while making ws. (if Bill approves) the more strict list, users have the choice to set their score accordingly.
I disagree. Making lists overly inclusive and increasing the false positives is how many anti-spam efforts fail. We should stay focussed on catching the hard core spammers since they are responsible for most of the abuse.
Also anyone not using zombies can be easily blocked with conventional RBLs at a vastly lower computational cost. There really isn't much point in adding anyone who sends spam from fixed IP addresses since they are dropped so much easier and faster with a regular RBL.
Jeff C.