[SURBL-Discuss] RFC: Combined SURBL list details, phishing l
csanterre at merchantsoverseas.com
Thu May 13 11:26:05 CEST 2004
>From: Simon Byrnand [mailto:simon at igrin.co.nz]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:12 PM
>To: Jeff Chan; SURBL Discussion list
>Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] RFC: Combined SURBL list details, phishing
>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 ?
Well this is Paul's magic project. Bill, Paul, and I have pretty much the
same policies. We check everything. When in doubt we throw it out. Don't
want ANY FPs. Removal is pretty easy. But this process is going to be
somewhat better. They will be checked by groups of people instead of 3 :-)
>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...
Paul's magic again. Posted to a list. A group of trusted reviewers see it.
Make a decision. Poof!
>So from a technical point of view, fine no problem, but I wonder a bit
>about compatibility of listing policies etc..
Thats the beauty of what Paul is working on. I'm hoping he can find some
time to elaborate more.
More information about the Discuss