[SURBL-Discuss] SURBL WS test scores in SA 3.0

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Sun Aug 29 03:15:59 CEST 2004


On Sunday, August 29, 2004, 1:41:43 AM, Alex Broens wrote:
> From: "Raymond Dijkxhoorn" <raymond at prolocation.net>

>> > For example, obviously, there are going to be many Fortune 500 companies
> who
>> > will get away with the worst kinds of harvesting of e-mails from web
> sites
>> > for spamming. Surely, most of the time, their legal departments will
> prevent
>> > this because their "deep pockets" cannot afford to pursue such risky
>> > business practices. But in the event that one DOES do this, we would
>> > obviously not want to include them in SURBL, even with their bad
> behavior.
>>
>> What are your thoughts about leveling the lists, so for example we can
>> make a new evil.surbl.org, where we also state 'dont use this at home,
>> unless...' then we can shift those 'grey area domains' to the new list and
>> we all can be happy.
>>
>> There will be more and more trying to be gray, and its not like a hardcore
>> spammer can send out 1 legit mailing and be whitelisted all at once...

> Supported.... I'd even say ws.subrl.org should be this list..... and let
> spamcop and the rest be more lenient.
> Adding another list would probably just complicate the choice, while making
> ws. (if Bill approves) the more strict list, users have the choice to set
> their score accordingly.

I disagree.  Making lists overly inclusive and increasing the
false positives is how many anti-spam efforts fail.  We
should stay focussed on catching the hard core spammers
since they are responsible for most of the abuse.

Also anyone not using zombies can be easily blocked with
conventional RBLs at a vastly lower computational cost.
There really isn't much point in adding anyone who sends
spam from fixed IP addresses since they are dropped so
much easier and faster with a regular RBL.

Jeff C.



More information about the Discuss mailing list