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

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Thu May 13 15:06:53 CEST 2004

On Thursday, May 13, 2004, 7:21:35 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
>>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc at surbl.org]

>>Actually I was getting tricky and proposing to collapse ws and be
>>into a single response within a combined list.   This was mainly
>>to prevent needing to remove separate be entries later since it will
>>probably be merged into ws eventually.  I was proposing short
>>circuiting that process in the combined list.

> I would say consider BE to be WS as of now. Just work with WS, because BE is
> definetly going to be pulled in. How we do that on the backend won't matter
> to the clients. For all intensive purposes, I won't be updating BE, I will
> be updating WS directly thru the magic of Paul. (He's just swamped at the
> moment.) 

> So again, consider BE non exhistant for future upgrades. It will save one
> lookup ;)

Sounds like you're saying we should not fold be in with ws for a
combined list.  Could we fold be in transparently into ws for the
combined list, then remove it later (all invisibly to the users
of the combined list)?  Or are you guys already merging them
behind the scenes?  Want to try to get all the domains....  :-)

Jeff C.

More information about the Discuss mailing list