[SURBL-Discuss] safe.surbl.org concerns

Rob McEwen rob at powerviewsystems.com
Sat Nov 13 03:16:48 CET 2004


RE: safe.surbl.org concerns

While I do see the reasoning behind the need for a "golden" list that users
can feel **particularly** secure about using in a MTA-like "set it and
forget it" type of blocking... I can help but wonder:

(1) Wasn't the original goal of ALL surbl.org to have a low enough FP rate
to be able to operate in "set it and forget it" MTA-like blocking mode? (I
guess the answer to this question is that Fortune-500 types want a really,
really powerful assurance that they can employ SURBL with virtually zero
FPs?)

(2) Even so, can I (we) be assured that having a "golden" list like this
will NOT diminish our standards with the regular list. In other words, I
would like to know that the FP rate of the regular list will at least stay
the same (and hopefully continue to improve). I'd hate to see SURBL
administrators get "slack" by virtue of thinking "well, if they wanted
**that** level of low FPs, they should have used the golden list."

Rob McEwen



More information about the Discuss mailing list