[SURBL-Discuss] BigEvil + MidEvil as SURBL

Simon Byrnand simon at igrin.co.nz
Thu Apr 22 11:16:12 CEST 2004


At 09:49 22/04/2004, you wrote:

> >> > 1) BigEvil wildcards. Not sure how you would handle these.
> >> Something like
> >> > evil\d{2,4}spam\.com is a general wildcard. Some of those
> >> domains don't even
> >> > exhist. Not sure how SURBL will handle that.
> >>
> >> Yes, I should have mentioned that I'm simply discarding them.
> >> Unfortunately there's no easy way to deal with them.  Domains
> >> without any patterns in them, which are a majority, come right
> >> through.  The script is at:
>
> > Can we make sure that when you announce this to the public that they know
> > this! :)
> > I can see the flurry of emails now.

Right near the top of 
http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/bigevil.domains.afterwhitelist there is 
123-ebiz - is that a mistake or parsing error ?


>But frankly I like the fact that there is some overlap in the
>lists.  In a sense that represents multiple reporting; i.e.
>a domain in more than one list is more likely a bad guy.
>I don't think we should lose that coding.
>
>YMMV, but I'd say keep any overlap in BE.  It's a feature not
>a bug.

I think so too. What some people suggesting merging are forgetting, is with 
lists with totally different sources, that whether a given URL is listed in 
one two or three of the lists IS an extra piece of information, something 
listed in all three is more likely to be correct than one listed on only 
one of the lists.

The SA approach of assigning a score to each list based on it's relative 
merits, and the scores ADDING if they're in multiple lists seems to be a 
sensible approach to me...

Of course there is nothing to stop you having merged lists available AS 
WELL for those that are willing to take the risk of one higher scoring 
merged list...with choice, everyone is happy ;)

By the way, am I jumping the gun here or is be.surbl.org ready to go, or 
should I wait a bit ? :)

Regards,
Simon


More information about the Discuss mailing list