[SURBL-Discuss] Re: Jeff's whitelists

Frank Ellermann nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Tue Jul 20 05:13:33 CEST 2004


Rob McEwen wrote:
 
> 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.

Sure, I fully agree with this statement.  And it's good to
remove obvious errors and innocent bystanders from surbl lists
manually.  As far as possible, manual interventions always come
after the fact.

And it's better to find technical solutions, e.g. a minimal
number of sightings, because that's something working even
without manual interventions.

But things start to get messy if Jeff defines some SpamCop
reports manually as erroneous although the SC users and staff
consider them as valid spam reports.

> regarding the sex sites, this is a great idea because many
> businesses would prefer to block these types of e-mail.

On my main address XXX spam is very rare, and I doubt that a
sex.surbl.org would help much.  It's difficult to define spam,
but my definition would try to avoid "content".  Enlargement
and viagra spam is not "better" than XXX spam, but far more
popular.

Actually I'm not really worried about a sex.surbl.org as long
as the source of the data is clear.  I'm more worried about a
SC.surbl.org not more reflecting the SC input data as defined
on <http://www.surbl.org/data.html>

| many independent spam reports by SpamCop users are required
| in order to get a domain onto the list
[...]
| few if any legitimate sites make it through the reporting
| threshold and simple, short whitelist 
[...]
| This is a democratic effect, improved by manual de-selection
| of legitimate domains by SpamCop users when they submit their
| reports. More reports means more votes that a given site is
| indeed spam. The quality of data is reinforced by the
| conscientious efforts of good people in reporting the spam.
| In this sense it is democracy in action.

These are high standards, and if I report spamarrest.com, then
this is my vote in this process.  If there are enough votes for
say spamarrest.com, and it's neither an error nor an innocent
bystander, then the "democracy in action" should result in a
host spamarrest.com.sc.surbl.org = 127.0.0.2

                       Bye, Frank




More information about the Discuss mailing list