Good idea. Let's do it. I'll be able to submit more domains to *this* list than I could to ws. It will finally give meaning to that pile of domains I always end up with and get ulcers trying to classify as black or white.
For the record... and just to be sure... I vote that unconfirmed.surbl.org NOT contain those things that we tend to agree with as NOT being spam, but sometimes gets reported as spam by end users.
For example, people sometimes forget that they really DID subscribe to a particular newsletter, and then complain about it as being spam. The SallyFoster.com site is a great example where a one-time e-mail is sent only at the request of a relative or friend. Another example is a legitimate newsletter with an open-loop signup page where someone signed up their friends or enemies (without their knowledge) for the newsletter.... not good practice, but if it represents a tiny fraction of that newletter's distribution, the newsletter is otherwise totally opt-in, and there are few to none NANAS hits... then this kind of stuff shouldn't get on the greylist.
Instead, unconfirmed.surbl.org ought to be for those really hard to classify things that ARE getting NANAS hits, that DO hit spamtraps, but that have enough legitimate purposes to not get placed in the regular SURBL lists.
If this advice is not heeded, then unconfirmed.surbl.org will get too convoluted and too bulky to be effective.
Rob McEwen
Rob McEwen wrote to SURBL Discussion list:
Good idea. Let's do it. I'll be able to submit more domains to *this* list than I could to ws. It will finally give meaning to that pile of domains I always end up with and get ulcers trying to classify as black or white.
For the record... and just to be sure... I vote that unconfirmed.surbl.org NOT contain those things that we tend to agree with as NOT being spam, but sometimes gets reported as spam by end users.
Yes, I really hope that's the general idea. I see uc.surbl.org as a place for those domains that we're *almost* sure are spam, but we can't (yet) take a strong enough stand to blacklist them outright.
Otherwise, the list won't have much value at all.
I say, let's set it up for development purposes as conservatively as we can, submit to it for a week or two, and then run some mass-checks (or equivalent) to see how it performs, and make policy adjustments accordingly.
- Ryan
On Thursday, September 2, 2004, 10:29:04 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
Instead, unconfirmed.surbl.org ought to be for those really hard to classify things that ARE getting NANAS hits, that DO hit spamtraps, but that have enough legitimate purposes to not get placed in the regular SURBL lists.
If this advice is not heeded, then unconfirmed.surbl.org will get too convoluted and too bulky to be effective.
I think that would tend to happen anyway. It's human nature to look for an easy place to dump things that are hard to categorize, and an unconfirmed list could easily become that, with all the negative consequences that go along with it.
That's not a slam on anyone here, just an acknowledgement of human nature.
Accurately putting records into a black (or white) list is sometimes difficult. That proves that the decisions are valuable. Just lumping things into a grey list cheapens those decisions and makes the results less valuable. Where we add value is in that decision making process. We should not diminish our value.
Jeff C.
-
Jeff Chan -
Rob McEwen -
Ryan Thompson