[SURBL-Discuss] Re: sex.surbl.org

[Bret Miller]

> I still vote YES on adding the sex sites (in a separate DNS feed).
> 
> (1) It seems like all the technology and know-how is in place 
> to do this... maybe with a little tweaking, but nothing 
> different than what has already been done elsewhere.

Which is why my vote is still "yes" too. 

> 
> (2) It would be a separate list and its use would be 
> completely voluntary. Therefore, this seems to me to be MORE 
> a question of "are there sufficient YET votes to make it 
> worthwhile"... and NOT so much a question of comparing the 
> "yes" vs. "no" votes because the "no" votes can simply choose 
> to not participate... which is easy.... simply don't do 
> anything different from what you are already doing.
> 
> (3) Its purpose and scope could easily be explained on the 
> SURBL.org site in its own page. It could even be omitted from 
> being mentioned on any other pages to avoid confusion.

However, as was explained in a different thread, a lot of adult sites
are subdomains and the SURBL mode of operation is to strip subdomains
down to their base domain, which would make it rather useless against
some sites. So, it would also have to be explained that the sex SURBL
was not a complete solution to eliminating sex sites, but rather a
better-than-nothing filter to remove some sex sites.

>From our point of view, blocking some sex sites is better than blocking
none, even if they are truly opt-in, confirmed signups.

On the other side of things, SURBL has significantly reduce the amount
of image-only sex spam that gets through in addition to making overall
spam scoring more accuate for us. So it's not an over-the-top need which
drives the interest, but just rather the convenience of using it to
further reduce the possibility of explicitly sexual photographs and
sites being sent through our e-mail system.

Bret