On Friday, October 8, 2004, 9:26:37 AM, Bill Landry wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Broens" surbl@alexb.ch
Jeff Chan wrote:
http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelists/wikipedia-dmoz.srt
Please also take a look at these blocklist hits (potential FPs) and share what you think:
http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelists/wikipedia-dmoz-blocklist.summed.txt
Would there be many FNs (missed spams) if we whitelisted all of these? In other words are these all truly False Positives? If not, which ones do you feel are true spammers and why.
probably not a new idea, but why not run a "wl.surbl.org" with all the whitelisted domains and ppl can choose to use it or not.
I like this idea! Whitelist the most commonly used 1,000 or so domains, and then create a wl.surbl.org for the rest of the wikipedia-dmoz domains.
As Chris mentions, applications using SURBLs are being udpated to not even check the top N whitehat domains like yahoo, w3.org, etc:
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3805 http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3886
That way they don't even incur DNS lookups and save much network time and DNS traffic.
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."