Frank,
I think you need to lighten up a bit and not take the jokes part so seriously.
Also, I think that Jeff is doing an excellent job, is very thorough, listens carefully to all sides and all evidence presented in disputes, and has excellent discernment and judgment.
A lot of projects like this one have been derailed or ruined by having someone in charge who did NOT have these qualities. We should be all be grateful for Jeff's hard work and dedication.
Also, regarding the sex sites, this is a great idea because many businesses would prefer to block these types of e-mail. Also, many families (particularly with young children) desire a way to get their children connected with e-mail WITHOUT having to fear that their 8 year old is going to see vivid "double penetration" photos, for example. Imagine having to explain that one.
Also, I think that the idea of separating sex sites from spammers fully addresses Frank's (& others) concerns here.
Rob McEwen
-----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces@lists.surbl.org [mailto:discuss-bounces@lists.surbl.org] On Behalf Of Frank Ellermann Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 5:15 PM To: discuss@lists.surbl.org Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Jeff's whitelists
Jeff Chan wrote:
If I mention http://www.spamarrest.com/ in my message, and spamarrest.com is in a SURBL, then my message could get blocked.
Sure, the same is true for any URL in SURBL. Apparently you are now planning to list sex sites only because they are sex sites. You're even making jokes about recipients who cannot complain if they don't get their daily XXX pics :-(
Use the raw SC data, don't introduce arbitrary whitelisting.
especially when you agree spamarrest is not originating the messages purely themselves. A better answer may be that they have an abuse problem and should fix it.
They have more than an abuse problem. I reported some of their challenges manually and never got an answer. They are spammers selling a pseudo-spam-solution.
I'd recommend reporting your spams to the relevant state and national governments' anti-spam folks.
I'm quite happy with my solution, i.e. report their challenges as spam via SpamCop. If you really think that it's a good idea to censor SC's data please rename this SURBL to jeff.surbl.org instead of SC.surbl.org, and please modify the description http://www.surbl.org/data.html
We really can't have every domain that's ever been abused a few times or caused someone to be annoyed in the lists
That's a technical problem, and you have solved it, something reported only a few times shouldn't show up in sc.surbl.org
But at the moment we're discussing arbitrary whitelisting of spamvertized URLs found more than only a few times in SpamCop reports. And spamarrest.com isn't an innocent bystander, it's their "business model" to harass third parties.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss