On Sunday, July 18, 2004, 5:35:52 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
Jeff Chan writes:
How does anyone else feel about turning this list of sex sites into a SURBL?
I'm a little concerned that such a list could result in significant false positives *if misapplied*. While sex sites probably appears in a lot of spams, this would also be slightly off our charter of going specifically after spammer domains. In other words while some adult sites are probably major spammers, some probably aren't. On the other hand, I can see how it would be quite useful for general content blocking, including the novel suggestion to use SURBLs in squid web proxy caches. But it feels like some topic drift to me....
I would suggest that if you set up a separate page on the website listing SURBLs that are specifically *not* necessarily spam-oriented, that'd be a good way to keep them separate and avoid people blindly throwing it into the spamfiltering mix.
That's a good suggestion of course. Even so, I can still see some "people blindly throwing it into the spamfiltering mix".... :-(
Not too many people would probably complain to their bosses about not being able to get mail about sex sites, but it could still technically be a false positive in some cases with respect to spam.
Jeff C.