[SURBL-Discuss] Re: Jeff's whitelists

Frank Ellermann nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Tue Jul 20 06:08:41 CEST 2004


Jeff Chan wrote:

> The benefit is that it would be an easy way to block sex
> sites, both in email and potentially in web proxies

If you get relevant input data which is also different from
the existing SURBLs.  See my reply to Rob, for e-mail the
enlargement or viagra stuff isn't really better than XXX.

And filtering Web pages is a completely different business.

> We can't use the raw, unwhitelisted SpamCop data since it
> could easily be poisoned.

Yes, I know this.  It's good to remove errors and innocent
bystanders.  And it's good to require a minimal number of
votes for the "democracy in action".  But as soon as errors,
joe jobs, and innocent bystanders are removed, and the
number of votes is above the required minimum, the result
should be clear.  I've quoted the relevant part of data.html
in my reply to Rob.

> I see it differently.

Then you won't vote for spamarrest.com.  As long as all votes
are equal there's no problem.  Otherwise it's arbitrariness.

> Did you report them?

I report my spam via SpamCop.  I'm not interested in the laws
of Washington, Taiwan, or any other state you care to name,
because I'm not yet planning to sue this or any other spammer.

But my vote in the case of spamarrest.com is clear, and you
would nullify it :-(  Where's that "democracy in action" as
promised on your Web page, is it only _fictitious_ ?  Bye.




More information about the Discuss mailing list