[SURBL-Discuss] Re: Jeff's whitelists

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Tue Jul 20 00:03:58 CEST 2004


On Monday, July 19, 2004, 8:08:41 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Jeff Chan wrote:

>> 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 would contend abuse of spamarrest's services, as you originally
described them, is closer to a Joe Job than outright spam by
spamarrest.

As you described it, the abusers are triggering spamarrest
messages to your mailbox by forging your return address on
messages sent through spamarrest.  That's more like abuse of a
poorly designed system by a third party than spam from spamarrest
itself.  The correct answer to that is to get spamarrest to
correct their broken system.

I don't believe in blacklisting systems simply because they're
broken designs are being abused.  The intent of SURBLs is
more to list the sites directly being advertised by spammers in
deliberate spams.  This does not appear to be such a case, as
you described it.

>> 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.

It's not at all arbitrary.  I already explained the criteria.
If a given domain is used by an otherwise legitimate company that
may have some legitimate mentions in messages, then they should
not be listed.

>> 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,

I'd propose that legal action may be better if spamarrest are
actually spamming and not simply being abused.

> because I'm not yet planning to sue this or any other spammer.

It's got nothing to do with suing them personally (in civil
court) since it would be a criminal matter if they are breaking
anti-spam laws.

Jeff C.



More information about the Discuss mailing list