-1 here
I think private is better. Public reports of FPs I am +1.
--Chris
-----Original Message----- From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 7:51 AM To: SURBL Discussion list Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] uptilt.com and their customers probably not spammers
On Thursday, July 1, 2004, 4:40:54 AM, David Hooton wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 02:33:33 -0700, Jeff Chan jeffc@surbl.org wrote:
the relative lack of inclusion across multiple SURBL data sources leads me to think that uptilt.com is probably not a spamhaus. Therefore I've used that list of uptilt.com domains and customer domains as a whitelist. That means they will not be included in SURBLs.
Thanks for your super diligence, we all appreciate it, so do
our clients :)
Thanks for your kind words David. As you can see I like to avoid false positives. :-)
I'm strongly tempted to make a public form for submitting whitelist entries, fully logged, rate-limited and reviewed, of course. It could help with the FPs and add more public visibility to the whitelisting process.
Jeff C.
Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
On Thursday, July 1, 2004, 6:51:32 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
-1 here
I think private is better. Public reports of FPs I am +1.
OK To me FPs and whitelisting are the same thing, but it sounds like if we did this you're saying it should be called "FP reporting" and not "whitelist reporting". Am I interpreting what you're saying correctly?
Jeff C. __
I'm strongly tempted to make a public form for submitting whitelist entries, fully logged, rate-limited and reviewed, of course. It could help with the FPs and add more public visibility to the whitelisting process.
-
Chris Santerre -
Jeff Chan