RFC: sex site domain SURBL (Was: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Jeff's whitelists)

Matt Yackley sare at yackley.org
Mon Jul 19 20:09:41 CEST 2004


Jeff Chan said:
>
> The reality is that the gray areas are often the most
> troublesome for only a small return, and the clearly professional
> spammers are likely responsible for a lot more of the spam than
> the occasionally rogue or abused quasi-legitimate company.
> So the professional spammers are probably a more important
> to focus on catching.
>
> I'd still like to hear anyone else's comments on a sex/adult
> SURBL.  It would be a separate list, and could be useful, but
> I'm somewhat concerned about the potential for misuse.
>
> Comments?
>
> Jeff C.

Hi Jeff,
I'm all for having a seperate list for sex/adult sites.  One of the major reasons I
became more involved in mail filtering was the HR folks at work becomming worried
about the possiblilty of sexual harrasment lawsuits based on companies not doing
anything about pornograhpic spam messages.  While a surbl list for adult sites is
not something that an ISP should implement, I see it as a great tool for corporate
or individual use.

As long as the test is not installed by default, but instead the admins must
manually setup the test, it should cut down the on the potenial for misuse.  If an
admin goes into his local.cf and creates a rule to check sex.surbl.org, well then
they get what they deserve...whether that is a useful tool or a bunch of pissed off
customers, thats up to them.

my $0.02

-matt





More information about the Discuss mailing list