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

Chris Santerre csanterre at merchantsoverseas.com
Fri May 14 11:30:31 CEST 2004

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc at surbl.org]
>Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 5:07 PM
>To: SURBL Discuss
>Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] RFC: Combined SURBL list details, phishing
>list ready
>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.

Yeah we will just transfer. Actually WS is so more up to date, the amount of
unique hits keeps getting smaller. Partly because I used to be the only game
in town, I felt the preasure to to keep updated. Now I don't thanks to you
guys :) So I'm trying to work on a bunch of things and not updating as
often. My ninja regex skills were getting rusty ;)


More information about the Discuss mailing list