-----Original Message----- From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 5:58 AM To: SURBL Discuss Cc: SpamAssassin Developers Subject: Possible large whitelist from DMOZ data
*snip*
And some list counts from those hits:
[ws] hits: 1173 [ob] hits: 165 [jp] hits: 61 [sc] hits: 8 [ab] hits: 4 [ph] hits: 2
These add up to more than 1338 since some records hit multiple lists. The actual hits are in:
Wow, it looks like some of the DMOZ data can't be trusted. Some of those domains in this WS blocklist are pure spammers.
adultmovienetwork.com has 135+ NANAS hits, is listed in spamhaus, ect.....
These need to ALL be checked carefully. Do not use DMOZ to autowhitelist. I will check A-C in this list. Any takers to check the rest?
1173 FPs......I doubt it.
--Chris
On Wednesday, October 6, 2004, 7:05:41 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org]
And some list counts from those hits:
[ws] hits: 1173 [ob] hits: 165 [jp] hits: 61 [sc] hits: 8 [ab] hits: 4 [ph] hits: 2
These add up to more than 1338 since some records hit multiple lists. The actual hits are in:
Wow, it looks like some of the DMOZ data can't be trusted. Some of those domains in this WS blocklist are pure spammers.
adultmovienetwork.com has 135+ NANAS hits, is listed in spamhaus, ect.....
Sure, but do they have any legitimate (non-spam) uses or ham mentions? (apple.com has 851 NANAS hits. Does that make them spammers?) Spamhaus is a good indication, but they may not have exactly the same operational requirements as we do: namely don't block ham.
These need to ALL be checked carefully. Do not use DMOZ to autowhitelist. I will check A-C in this list. Any takers to check the rest?
1173 FPs......I doubt it.
--Chris
I've broken down the WS data source hits individually in a private message to all the WS data folks. Perhaps people could start by checking their individual ones.
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
-
Chris Santerre -
Jeff Chan