[SURBL-Discuss] Re: sex.surbl.org

[Jeff Chan]

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.