[SURBL-Discuss] Re: Jeff's whitelists

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Mon Jul 19 20:35:29 CEST 2004


On Monday, July 19, 2004, 7:13:33 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> 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.

I agree it's not good to override the SpamCop reports, but there
will always be a need to have whitelists to prevent Joe Jobs
and deliberate poisoning of the data.

I also understand that you would like spamarrest listed, but as
we discussed it, it does not seem they are creating the spams
by themselves (abusers are initiating it), and they probably have
some legitimate uses, so we really can't list them.

As a measure of how good the SpamCop data is, the actual
whitelist hit log is commendably sparse:

  http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelist-hits.new.log

So the sc.surbl.org thresholding, etc. of the SpamCop data
appears to be working pretty well.

P.S. Can anyone read Korean and tell us what the oo.to site
is.  Are they spammers?  Should we list them?

Jeff C.



More information about the Discuss mailing list