On Thursday, September 30, 2004, 8:45:21 PM, David Hooton wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:27:20 -0700, Jeff Chan jeffc@surbl.org wrote:
On Thursday, September 30, 2004, 7:58:44 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
Something to consider is weighting the whitelist requests for domains that don't feel right like this one. One request for a domain like this may not cut the mustard. 3...OK.
There aren't enough FP reports to do that. We've never gotten more than one request for a given domain.
Could this be because we've been a little too responsive? Most whitelistings are almost immediate right now.. If we had a cooling off period for questionable domains it might allow us to gather more evidence.
We only whitelist the obvious ones immediately. Others require more research. But the research does not take days or even hours. After checking the obvious things like domain age, SBL and NANAS hits, it boils down to trying to determine if a domain has legitimate uses. If it does we don't want to list it and cause FPs.
When in doubt, it's better for us to whitelist. We're already catching a large majority of spams. We don't want the value of that to be diminished by potential false positives.
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."