[SURBL-Discuss] Re: Which rules are replaces by *.surbl.org?

Chris Santerre csanterre at merchantsoverseas.com
Tue Jun 15 13:45:06 CEST 2004

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc at surbl.org]
>Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 7:13 PM
>To: SpamAssassin Developers; SURBL Discuss
>Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Which rules are replaces by *.surbl.org?
>On Monday, June 14, 2004, 2:03:11 PM, Chris Santerre wrote:
>>>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc at surbl.org]
>>>Ideally if folks want every function, they should:
>>>0.  Use sc.surbl.org
>>>1.  Use ws.surbl.org (which now has the be.surbl.org domains)
>>>2.  *Not* use be.surbl.org (which is now redundant)
>>>3.  Use BigEvil.cf (and perhaps MidEvil.cf also, depending
>>>on how Chris and Paul work things out.)
>> Yes, but I want to add that there _WILL_ be a "BigEvil 
>style" cf version of
>> ws.surbl.org for those people who won't/can't use the SURBL 
>net lookups for
>> some strange reason. This is still being worked on. One of 
>the main reasons
>> I haven't updates BE in a while is because I've been working 
>on the new WS
>> submission stuff. (Thanks to everyone who is involved in that!)
>Thanks, I forgot about that other direction of rules style
>entries moving from sa-blacklist back into bigevil.cf.  Sounds
>like the best of both worlds in a nice mirror of both types:
>A.  ws.surbl.org gets all the "static" domains from BigEvil,
>sa-blacklist, etc. in the form of a SURBL.
>B.  BigEvil.cf gets all the domains, including those from
>sa-blacklist, heavily wildcarded ones, etc. in the form of a
>I didn't think of it earlier, but that will increase the
>overlapped coverage for folks using both of the above however.
>Please be sure to let me know when you start feeding the larger
>lists into BigEvil.cf so I can know when to stop feeding them
>into be.  Don't want a feedback loop of those going into ws.
>Accordingly I will also stop feeding be into ws at that time.
>(Bill Stearns, please note the above.  My feed of be to you
>should freeze at some point.  Chris we should definitely
>coordinate when I should freeze the be I send Bill.  Please
>let me know.)

Well I haven't even been updating BE. My update today removed some FP and
regex goofs. Nothing added. I have been adding to [ws] because it is MUCH
easier :D You can pretty much stop feeding [be] into [ws] right now. 

>Also: *when should we announce that be domains are now in ws, and
>that people should stop using be?*   Is everyone comfortable that
>the combined ws is now working as expected, including the be
>domains being folded in?

You could do that now. Stating that [be] will not change until the [ws] to
bigevil.cf script work is complete. Once that is done I will add the dynamic
stuff to BE. But from now on, I only update static domains to [ws].

>> Things should also pickup in the addition of new domains. 
>More _trusted_
>> sources are being worked on now. We are being really picky, 
>and making
>> people walk the Gauntlet of Fire! :D
>More data sources sound good.  I'm glad we're being very careful
>that false positives don't get in.  When we get a clearinghouse
>set up to double check them, that will help.

*cough* Paul you still alive? *cough*


More information about the Discuss mailing list