[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
>ruleset.
>
>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*
--Chris
More information about the Discuss
mailing list