Chris Santerre wrote to SURBL Discussion list (E-mail):
I am officially proposing a greylist surbl.
+1, [x], check, ditto, and good idea.
I've been wishing for one of these for a while.
We are going to see more and more of this stuff. We might as well deal with it now. I'm suggesting a greylist for all spammers that ride that line. Like the euniverse junk we have been talking about.
1)We DO NOT include it in multi.
It would reduce overall traffic and ease administration to include it in multi. Multi is just a bitmapped convenience to access multiple SURBLs. However, I'll concede to your point.
2)We SCREAM to the world that it WILL hit some legit, and that only hard liners should use.
Yep. By now, this concept shouldn't be too hard to understand. That doesn't mean a select group of admins won't do stupid things with the data. (Just like we've all seen servers unequivocally block based on some of the "list almost everything" dynamic IP RBLs). But, the more loudly we scream this point, the less difficulty we'll have.
3)We DON'T remove domains unless they go completely black, or have no NANAS hits for 3-4 months.
..or are later shown to be completely whitehat. But, yeah, let's not forget that this proposed list will contain sites that are used by spammers, but way well have some small legit uses, as well... right?
4)See number 2 again. 5)We tell people it is completely optional and to see number 2.
I predict it would be used more for personal emails. IT also gives us an in between mechanism. Rather then list or no list. We get a grey list we desperately need.
Yes. I would use it in production with SA, and just assign a lower score (maybe 1-2 points, depending on my *own* mass-check).
THoughts?
Good idea. Let's do it. I'll be able to submit more domains to *this* list than I could to ws. It will finally give meaning to that pile of domains I always end up with and get ulcers trying to classify as black or white.
- Ryan