On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 04:50:37 -0700, Jeff Chan jeffc@surbl.org wrote:
On Thursday, July 1, 2004, 4:40:54 AM, David Hooton wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 02:33:33 -0700, Jeff Chan jeffc@surbl.org wrote:
the relative lack of inclusion across multiple SURBL data sources leads me to think that uptilt.com is probably not a spamhaus. Therefore I've used that list of uptilt.com domains and customer domains as a whitelist. That means they will not be included in SURBLs.
Thanks for your super diligence, we all appreciate it, so do our clients :)
Thanks for your kind words David. As you can see I like to avoid false positives. :-)
I'm strongly tempted to make a public form for submitting whitelist entries, fully logged, rate-limited and reviewed, of course. It could help with the FPs and add more public visibility to the whitelisting process.
Hmm - given experiences of several associates I would probably make that a hand reviewed process, possibly requiring a text justification to accompany the removal request. I have heard of trojaned PC's being used to abuse these kinds of services from multiple locations in order to avoid the rate limiting thing.
Seeing as SURBL is beginning to make a rather impressive impact on spam for so many users, I would suggest avoiding any easily/possibly abuseable options.