[SURBL-Discuss] RFC: Combined SURBL list details, phishing list ready

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Wed May 12 17:25:01 CEST 2004

On Wednesday, May 12, 2004, 4:12:07 PM, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> At 11:02 13/05/2004, you wrote:

>>5.  We will likely want to combine the ws and be lists into a
>>single entry in a combined list, probably using the .1 bit for
>>both of them, since both lists contain the enumerated
>>(non-wildcarded) domains from SA regular expressions.  Also,
>>things are moving towards combining the non-wildcarded domains
>>sa-blacklist and BigEvil/MidEvil, so this would somewhat
>>short-circuit that process and future-proof things.

> Is it necessarily a good idea to combine lists like ws and be into a single 
> entity when the sources of information are different ? (One comes from 
> Bill, one comes from Chris) What policies of inclusion and removal do they 
> each have ?

> Say that a legitimate domain were somehow blocked, how would an end user 
> know if it was Bill's data or Chris's that actually had it listed, to try 
> and get it removed ? Etc...

> So from a technical point of view, fine no problem, but I wonder a bit 
> about compatibility of listing policies etc..

Yes, the reason for it is that the be list will probably come
under the policies of the ws list eventually, as they are planned
(behind the scenes) to be merged together.  This would hasten the
process, at least in the combined list.  As individual lists,
that merging may happen later.

Note that this is only referring to the enumerable,
non-wildcarded domains from both.  The wildcarded and
impractical-to-enumerated domains from both may find their way
into a combined regular experssion SA ruleset, probably a
revamped BigEvil or somesuch.

Jeff C.

More information about the Discuss mailing list