Re: Don't want to give ham lists for creating whitelists
jeffc at surbl.org
Fri Apr 30 21:23:29 CEST 2004
On Friday, April 30, 2004, 6:55:44 PM, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> For what it's worth, most of the URLs hitting SURBL in my ham are spam
> URLs anyway.
> On Saturday, 140 messages hit BE or WS SURBL out of 14971 total ham in
> my corpus.
> Retesting those 140 messages now, only 105 messages hit, so you've
> probably removed some domains since Friday. Hopefully, because they're
> not spamming domains.
To be honest, be and ws are maintained by Bill, Chris and crew.
My main contribution, other than rblifying them, is to check
them against our manual whitelist before they get turned into
SURBLs. So if there are significant changes, it's probably due
to changes those authors made.
I can somewhat take a step back from sc.surbl.org also in
that the source data for it comes from SpamCop reports,
with some munging, whitelisting, etc. done by my engine.
More information about the Discuss