On Monday, July 19, 2004, 2:14:46 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
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 :-(
We're considering it. It has benefits and disadvantages. The benefit is that it would be an easy way to block sex sites, both in email and potentially in web proxies (assuming someone writes that code, for example into squid). The potential problem is that if it's misapplied it could create a large new set of false positives.
Use the raw SC data, don't introduce arbitrary whitelisting.
We can't use the raw, unwhitelisted SpamCop data since it could easily be poisoned. For example an abuser or spammer could submit http://www.claranet.de/ or http://www.google.com/ or http://www.spamcop.net/ to SpamCop a few times then those would be blocked. Obviously we can't allow that.
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 see it differently. Besides if that have *any significant* legitimate use, we can't list them.
I'd recommend reporting your spams to the relevant state and national governments' anti-spam folks.
And spamarrest.com isn't an innocent bystander, it's their "business model" to harass third parties.
If their business model is to spam people, then the State of Washington could trivially use their anti-spam laws to shut them down. Did you report them?
http://www.atg.wa.gov/junkemail/
If not, then there's not much to say.
Jeff C.