[SURBL-Discuss] Re: Jeff's whitelists

Rob McEwen webmaster at powerviewsystems.com
Mon Jul 19 18:57:47 CEST 2004


I think you need to lighten up a bit and not take the jokes part so

Also, I think that Jeff is doing an excellent job, is very thorough, listens
carefully to all sides and all evidence presented in disputes, and has
excellent discernment and judgment.

A lot of projects like this one have been derailed or ruined by having
someone in charge who did NOT have these qualities. We should be all be
grateful for Jeff's hard work and dedication.

Also, regarding the sex sites, this is a great idea because many businesses
would prefer to block these types of e-mail. Also, many families
(particularly with young children) desire a way to get their children
connected with e-mail WITHOUT having to fear that their 8 year old is going
to see vivid "double penetration" photos, for example. Imagine having to
explain that one.

Also, I think that the idea of separating sex sites from spammers fully
addresses Frank's (& others) concerns here.

Rob McEwen

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.surbl.org
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.surbl.org] On Behalf Of Frank Ellermann
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 5:15 PM
To: discuss at lists.surbl.org
Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Jeff's whitelists

Jeff Chan wrote:

> If I mention http://www.spamarrest.com/ in my message, and
> spamarrest.com is in a SURBL, then my message could get
> blocked.

Sure, the same is true for any URL in SURBL.  Apparently you
are now planning to list sex sites only because they are sex
sites.  You're even making jokes about recipients who cannot
complain if they don't get their daily XXX pics :-(

Use the raw SC data, don't introduce arbitrary whitelisting.

> especially when you agree spamarrest is not originating the
> messages purely themselves.  A better answer may be that they
> have an abuse problem and should fix it.

They have more than an abuse problem.  I reported some of their
challenges manually and never got an answer.  They are spammers
selling a pseudo-spam-solution.

> I'd recommend reporting your spams to the relevant state and
> national governments' anti-spam folks.

I'm quite happy with my solution, i.e. report their challenges
as spam via SpamCop.  If you really think that it's a good idea
to censor SC's data please rename this SURBL to jeff.surbl.org
instead of SC.surbl.org, and please modify the description

> We really can't have every domain that's ever been abused a
> few times or caused someone to be annoyed in the lists

That's a technical problem, and you have solved it, something
reported only a few times shouldn't show up in sc.surbl.org

But at the moment we're discussing arbitrary whitelisting of
spamvertized URLs found more than only a few times in SpamCop
reports.  And spamarrest.com isn't an innocent bystander, it's
their "business model" to harass third parties.

                          Bye, Frank

Discuss mailing list
Discuss at lists.surbl.org

More information about the Discuss mailing list