[SURBL-Discuss] sex.surbl.org

Bret Miller bret.miller at wcg.org
Wed Aug 4 09:22:43 CEST 2004


> What was the final say on this? Are we waiting until more 
> people use multi?

Since multi is now available for the 2.63 users, I don't see any reason
to wait. But then, I'm not the one who has to make the list available
either...

Bret

> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Bret Miller [mailto:bret.miller at wcg.org]
> >Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 4:06 PM
> >To: rob at pvsys.com; SURBL Discussion list
> >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: sex.surbl.org
> >
> >
> >> I still vote YES on adding the sex sites (in a separate DNS feed).
> >> 
> >> (1) It seems like all the technology and know-how is in place 
> >> to do this... maybe with a little tweaking, but nothing 
> >> different than what has already been done elsewhere.
> >
> >Which is why my vote is still "yes" too. 
> >
> >> 
> >> (2) It would be a separate list and its use would be 
> >> completely voluntary. Therefore, this seems to me to be MORE 
> >> a question of "are there sufficient YET votes to make it 
> >> worthwhile"... and NOT so much a question of comparing the 
> >> "yes" vs. "no" votes because the "no" votes can simply choose 
> >> to not participate... which is easy.... simply don't do 
> >> anything different from what you are already doing.
> >> 
> >> (3) Its purpose and scope could easily be explained on the 
> >> SURBL.org site in its own page. It could even be omitted from 
> >> being mentioned on any other pages to avoid confusion.
> >
> >However, as was explained in a different thread, a lot of adult sites
> >are subdomains and the SURBL mode of operation is to strip subdomains
> >down to their base domain, which would make it rather useless against
> >some sites. So, it would also have to be explained that the sex SURBL
> >was not a complete solution to eliminating sex sites, but rather a
> >better-than-nothing filter to remove some sex sites.
> >
> >>From our point of view, blocking some sex sites is better 
> >than blocking
> >none, even if they are truly opt-in, confirmed signups.
> >
> >On the other side of things, SURBL has significantly reduce 
> the amount
> >of image-only sex spam that gets through in addition to 
> making overall
> >spam scoring more accuate for us. So it's not an over-the-top 
> >need which
> >drives the interest, but just rather the convenience of using it to
> >further reduce the possibility of explicitly sexual photographs and
> >sites being sent through our e-mail system.
> >
> >Bret

----------
 
Send your spam to: bretmiller at wcg.org
Thanks for keeping the internet spam-free!
 






More information about the Discuss mailing list