Jeff Chan wrote:
If I mention http://www.spamarrest.com/ in my message, and spamarrest.com is in a SURBL, then my message could get blocked.
Sure, the same is true for any URL in SURBL. Apparently you are now planning to list sex sites only because they are sex sites. You're even making jokes about recipients who cannot complain if they don't get their daily XXX pics :-(
Use the raw SC data, don't introduce arbitrary whitelisting.
especially when you agree spamarrest is not originating the messages purely themselves. A better answer may be that they have an abuse problem and should fix it.
They have more than an abuse problem. I reported some of their challenges manually and never got an answer. They are spammers selling a pseudo-spam-solution.
I'd recommend reporting your spams to the relevant state and national governments' anti-spam folks.
I'm quite happy with my solution, i.e. report their challenges as spam via SpamCop. If you really think that it's a good idea to censor SC's data please rename this SURBL to jeff.surbl.org instead of SC.surbl.org, and please modify the description http://www.surbl.org/data.html
We really can't have every domain that's ever been abused a few times or caused someone to be annoyed in the lists
That's a technical problem, and you have solved it, something reported only a few times shouldn't show up in sc.surbl.org
But at the moment we're discussing arbitrary whitelisting of spamvertized URLs found more than only a few times in SpamCop reports. And spamarrest.com isn't an innocent bystander, it's their "business model" to harass third parties.
Bye, Frank