On Monday, October 25, 2004, 12:55:07 PM, Chris Santerre wrote:
From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org]
Might it be better to set up the blog spam domains as a separate list inside multi, but testing them first? We would still want to find a way to minimize collateral damage and keep otherwise legitimate domains off a blog list.
Legitimate domains like greatnow.com?
http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com http://www.viaga-viagra.greatnow.com http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com http://generic-cialis.greatnow.com http://www.ed.greatnow.com/ http://www.bulk-email.greatnow.com http://www.bonds.greatnow.com http://www.1-dating.greatnow.com http://www.credit-card.greatnow.com http://www.car-insurance.greatnow.com
Probably every free hosting site has abuse, but most have far more legitimate uses than abusive ones. greatnow may be an exception. I did find a ton of blog spam for it on google, as you suggested. The real question is how much legitimate use they have. I did apparently find some, but it doesn't mean they're a whitehat. They could be a blackhat with a few incidental or unintentional legitimate users. :-(
The question deserves some research. The reason I brought them up is because some had an apparent legitimate use for greatnow.com. That's usually a reason to not list them.
We got the UC list covered. It isn't in the SURBL group. You don't have to worry about it.
--Chris
If we're thinking about setting up a blog list (as we were earlier), then it might be useful to test the data before using it, don't you agree?
I don't see how dumping lists with arbitrary FPs onto UC helps either UC or SURBLs. In fact it's one of the bad things we predicted: that a grey list would become a dumping ground with some FPs and some domains that belong on a blocklist, all sitting there underclassified, unchecked or ignored.
It's better to do things openly and let people check new data sources together.
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."