On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 10:56:35PM -0500, Matthew Hunter matthew@infodancer.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 04:24:10PM -0700, Jeff Chan jeffc@surbl.org wrote:
On Monday, October 25, 2004, 4:10:16 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
it's good to test on more system and more than one set of mail to better find potential problems.
more than one systems.... Anyway did we find any other public blog spam data besides jayallen? IIRC Matthew Hunter was staring to collect some blog spam data. Matthew, how is that going?
Fairly well by my primary measure, which is stopping spam comments and trackbacks on my blog. I've learned that the number of domains actually being used for this sort of thing is very small compared to email spam. I've added the 24 domains of my own to the MT-blacklist list from 2004/08/29 and that has sufficed to block everyone who is trying to spam my blog. 0 false positives on blog spam attempts, but I'm not using the same list to block on email.
It should be noted that my definition of "false positive" may differ from that of the SURBL overall. In particular, I don't consider a domain a false positive if someone has attempted to blog-spam me with it -- even if the domain has legitimate uses. The domains I am being spammed with are very obviously porn-related; as my blog is not porn-related they are clearly spam.
Whether someone who is into porn and/or willing to pay for porn would have a legitimate use for these domains I can't say. So there might be FPs from a SURBL perspective. But not from mine.