----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Chan" jeffc@surbl.org
Ok, so now it should be "If it *can* appear in hams, then don't list
it.",
Not "If it *does" appear..."?
patrik
To me it's the same. Ham = don't list.
I guess we need to come to some kind of consensus on what is the higher priority of SURBL, the potential blocking of legitimate mail or the potential delivery of spam. With that understanding, our process becomes much easier to define. In my mind, I would rather deliver a few spam than block legitimate mail from getting delivered. So with this basic tenant, I would have to lean towards Jeff's listing philosophy. What do others here think?
I know that other URI lists will crop up over time, just like RBLs and RHSBLs have, and some will be more aggressive than SURBL, just like other RBL/RHSBLs are more aggressive than others. I think the paradigm that Jeff is trying to follow with SURBL is the more accurate/less aggressive posturing of something like the SBL RBL list. Whereas others here seem to want something more aggressive, like possibly the SPEWS RBL list, where collateral damage is to be expected.
I think that if some here want a more aggressive listing policy, than they should consider setting up a new URI list, like the UC list maintainers are working on, and define and support a more aggressive listing policy. Then people can gauge their level of tolerance, based on the particular list's reputation, and decide accordingly what lists they what to use.
Just my 2 cents...
Bill