What was the final say on this? Are we waiting until more people use multi?
--Chris
-----Original Message----- From: Bret Miller [mailto:bret.miller@wcg.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 4:06 PM To: rob@pvsys.com; SURBL Discussion list Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: sex.surbl.org
I still vote YES on adding the sex sites (in a separate DNS feed).
(1) It seems like all the technology and know-how is in place to do this... maybe with a little tweaking, but nothing different than what has already been done elsewhere.
Which is why my vote is still "yes" too.
(2) It would be a separate list and its use would be completely voluntary. Therefore, this seems to me to be MORE a question of "are there sufficient YET votes to make it worthwhile"... and NOT so much a question of comparing the "yes" vs. "no" votes because the "no" votes can simply choose to not participate... which is easy.... simply don't do anything different from what you are already doing.
(3) Its purpose and scope could easily be explained on the SURBL.org site in its own page. It could even be omitted from being mentioned on any other pages to avoid confusion.
However, as was explained in a different thread, a lot of adult sites are subdomains and the SURBL mode of operation is to strip subdomains down to their base domain, which would make it rather useless against some sites. So, it would also have to be explained that the sex SURBL was not a complete solution to eliminating sex sites, but rather a better-than-nothing filter to remove some sex sites.
From our point of view, blocking some sex sites is better
than blocking none, even if they are truly opt-in, confirmed signups.
On the other side of things, SURBL has significantly reduce the amount of image-only sex spam that gets through in addition to making overall spam scoring more accuate for us. So it's not an over-the-top need which drives the interest, but just rather the convenience of using it to further reduce the possibility of explicitly sexual photographs and sites being sent through our e-mail system.
Bret
Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
On Wednesday, August 4, 2004, 7:53:02 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
What was the final say on this?
The particular data source we looked at seemed to have too many false positives. Maybe there are some data sources we could check.
Also there's some dilution of focus and potential for misapplication since such a list probably would have non-spammers on it. Someone who blindly plugged in such a list along with other spam-oriented SURBLs would probably get some false positives in terms of non-spam messages getting hits, compared to the existing purely spam SURBLs.
So while it's an interesting idea, there were a few classes of potential problems with it the last time we looked.
Jeff C.
At 08:13 2004-08-04 -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Wednesday, August 4, 2004, 7:53:02 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
What was the final say on this?
The particular data source we looked at seemed to have too many false positives. Maybe there are some data sources we could check.
Also there's some dilution of focus and potential for misapplication since such a list probably would have non-spammers on it.
I think that it would be a substantial dilution of focus that could cause serious damage to surbl.org's reputation.
If some people find it useful to have surbl-type lists of domains that are not necessarily spam but that they find objectionable for some reason, be it sex sites, gaming sites, sites selling alcohol or promoting drugs or whatever, I think it would be better if they where done totally separate from surbl.org.
Patrik
What was the final say on this? Are we waiting until more people use multi?
Since multi is now available for the 2.63 users, I don't see any reason to wait. But then, I'm not the one who has to make the list available either...
Bret
-----Original Message----- From: Bret Miller [mailto:bret.miller@wcg.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 4:06 PM To: rob@pvsys.com; SURBL Discussion list Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: sex.surbl.org
I still vote YES on adding the sex sites (in a separate DNS feed).
(1) It seems like all the technology and know-how is in place to do this... maybe with a little tweaking, but nothing different than what has already been done elsewhere.
Which is why my vote is still "yes" too.
(2) It would be a separate list and its use would be completely voluntary. Therefore, this seems to me to be MORE a question of "are there sufficient YET votes to make it worthwhile"... and NOT so much a question of comparing the "yes" vs. "no" votes because the "no" votes can simply choose to not participate... which is easy.... simply don't do anything different from what you are already doing.
(3) Its purpose and scope could easily be explained on the SURBL.org site in its own page. It could even be omitted from being mentioned on any other pages to avoid confusion.
However, as was explained in a different thread, a lot of adult sites are subdomains and the SURBL mode of operation is to strip subdomains down to their base domain, which would make it rather useless against some sites. So, it would also have to be explained that the sex SURBL was not a complete solution to eliminating sex sites, but rather a better-than-nothing filter to remove some sex sites.
From our point of view, blocking some sex sites is better
than blocking none, even if they are truly opt-in, confirmed signups.
On the other side of things, SURBL has significantly reduce
the amount
of image-only sex spam that gets through in addition to
making overall
spam scoring more accuate for us. So it's not an over-the-top need which drives the interest, but just rather the convenience of using it to further reduce the possibility of explicitly sexual photographs and sites being sent through our e-mail system.
Bret
----------
Send your spam to: bretmiller@wcg.org Thanks for keeping the internet spam-free!
-
Bret Miller -
Chris Santerre -
Jeff Chan -
Patrik Nilsson