[SURBL-Discuss] Re: Please sanity check sa.surbl.org announcement

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Sun Apr 11 01:59:57 CEST 2004

On Sunday, April 11, 2004, 12:29:43 AM, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Jeff Chan <jeffc at surbl.org> writes:

>> Can any 3.0 guys able to comment if I got the urirhsbl syntax correct:

> It's correct, but you might not need to get it correct because the rule
> will likely ship with 3.0 when it is released if it seems to work well
> and it helps.

Let's hope that proves to be the case.  :-)

Would you please do a spam and ham corpora check with
"sa.surbl.org" whenever you can?  We'd really like to know any
false positives to remove if that's possible to determine.

> I have a concern about the rule.  Bill Stern's SpamAssassin blacklist is
> a blacklist *for* SpamAssassin, so I think the naming of your rule and
> the DNSBL name (sa.surbl.org) are unintentionally a bit misleading since
> the list is not maintained by the ASF or SpamAssassin.  I think it would
> be a good idea to rename the DNSBL and the rule to make this clearer.
> Maybe we should encourage (or help) Bill Stern to pick a snappy name.
> :-)

Fair enough.  I picked sa.surbl.org out of thin air since his rule
started with "sa" and to give oblique credit to the original
motivation for his rule, if not the precise source.

Bill, anyone, got some better names?  I prefer two letters.
(sa and sc were kind of confusing anyway.)   "sb" for
Sa-Blacklist anyone?  LOL!  ;-)

> Also, it would be better from our perspective if we could get multiple
> RBL results from a single query to reduce overhead.  Any of multiple A
> (like NJABL, SBL/XBL, or SORBS), bitmask A (like OPM or RBL+), or
> multiple TXT (like SBL/XBL) would probably not be too hard to support
> (Justin?).

We deliberately did not want to combine Bill's list and mine not
so much due to not-invented-here syndrome but because their
source data is so different, and because their size and time
factors are pretty radically different at present.  I gave some
of the original reasons in the proposed announcement which I had
not forwarded here yet, but will now.

>> P.S. If we can get some 3.0 developers on discuss at lists.surbl.org,
>> perhaps we can take the talk there.

> Carbon-coping spamassassin-dev at incubator.apache.org (which is public)
> for SpamAssassin issues (all versions) is probably the easiest way to
> get SpamAssassin developers involved in a discussion.

OK Cross-posting it is...  :-|  LOL!

Jeff C.
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc at surbl.org-nospam

More information about the Discuss mailing list