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.
WOW... Bill didn't bark at me this time.
my point is the following:
take for example "angelfire. com". This domain may have legitimate users but my user base would NEVER have contact with anybody hosting a site or anything there. If they support spam, list them, put pressure on them to stop supporting spammers, bla, bla, bla. I wouldn't appreciate it being whitelisted as then if there's abuse, and it does get blacklisted, there's no pressure on the domain holder to clean up.
As I imagine we're fighting spam here, not just filtering, I have a certain difficulty understanding why the world is crying for whitelisting instead of putting pressure on so called whitehats who support abuse for a lifetime.
as Chris said, you could make whitelisting a lifetime task. I believe the better approach would be to decrease potential FP's by increasing the reporting QUALITY !!!!!!!!
Alex
//Are we fighting Spam or working for Messagelabs & Co. for free? //