Peter Bowyer a écrit :
On 09/08/06, Eric Montréal erv@mailpeers.net wrote:
also, since most legitimate mailing lists are to recipients in close geographic proximity,
Care to quote your data source for this assumption? Your deffinition of 'most' and of 'close proximity'?
Obviously, I'm not the one running surbl, how could I already have the data ?
The point was that, except for very large lists sent from domains that will never be listed by surbl in the first place, most (that means a statistically significant portion) should generate surbl traffic patterns different enough to allow distinction between such a list an a spam list whose recipients are located all around the world and would generate a high number of requests, from very diverse places.
The idea was that data mining in surbl logs (or other RBL / URI services queried by a large number of servers) might enhance accuracy by allowing accurate realtime detection of spams in progress. I might be wrong, or maybe it's not surbl's role to do such analysis.