-----Original Message----- From: Ryan Thompson [mailto:ryan@sasknow.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:38 AM To: SURBL Discussion list Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] To MUNGE to not to MUNGE
*snip*
I see no reason to MUNGE domains posted to this list. Unless someone has some really compelling evidence to the contrary, could we please curb this silly practice before it really becomes a silly collective habit? :-)
I agree
--Chris_MUNGED_Santerre
:p
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:52:38 -0400 , Chris Santerre csanterre@merchantsoverseas.com wrote:
I agree
I disagree, this only takes into account the SA implementation of SURBL and does not take into account other peoples implementations which may still block on body text.
While I agree that it is good practice not to filter mailing lists, some people still do or do not have the ability not to.
I think munging is still a good practice and ensures that the maximum possible number of people are able to contribute to all threads on this list. It really doesn't take much effort to copy and paste the munged domain into a text editor and remove the munging if you have trouble reading it normally.
Hi David, At 08:08 01-09-2004, David Hooton wrote:
I disagree, this only takes into account the SA implementation of SURBL and does not take into account other peoples implementations which may still block on body text.
These implementations should be able to whitelist the server which hosts this mailing list. If they are blocking on body text, it means that they would also be rejecting spam reports to abuse@example.com.
Regards, -sm
David Hooton wrote to SURBL Discussion list:
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:52:38 -0400 , Chris Santerre csanterre@merchantsoverseas.com wrote:
I agree
I disagree, this only takes into account the SA implementation of SURBL and does not take into account other peoples implementations which may still block on body text.
OK. 127.0.0.2 . Anybody who didn't get this message, please raise your hand. :-)
Seriously, does anyone know of a publically available SURBL implementation that processes *bare domains* in the body text of an email? I'd like to look into it, if there is. I don't disagree with it, but there are some tricky problems I haven't yet found good answers to.
While I agree that it is good practice not to filter mailing lists, some people still do or do not have the ability not to.
More to the point, the point is not to filter _anti-spam_ mailing lists. All sorts of nasty things happen while filtering spam mailing lists, (especially with systems that learn). Except for the protection of recipient privacy, we don't munge other spam characteristics to avoid spam filters when posting example headers and emails to this list or the SpamAssassin users list.
If there are broken systems or clients that really can not be configured to ignore the traffic from this list, I would like to collectively focus on assisting these people (be they software authors or server administrators) to follow best/better practices, rather than inconveniencing the (I'm guessing) almost total list population bare plaintext domains don't affect.
RM makes a good point in his email, which is next on my list. :-)
- Ryan
Ryan Thompson wrote to SURBL Discussion list:
RM makes a good point in his email, which is next on my list. :-)
Ack. Please ignore the above reference. I was momentarily confused. No hard feelings..? :-)
- Ryan
-
Chris Santerre -
David Hooton -
Ryan Thompson -
SM