[SURBL-Discuss] safe.surbl.org concerns
jeffc at surbl.org
Sat Nov 13 03:35:30 CET 2004
On Friday, November 12, 2004, 6:16:48 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
> 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
Yes, but it seems really difficult to achieve perfection in any
This is a proposal for some experiments to see if we can derive a
"carrier grade" list, as Carl Friend called it off list, from
some of the existing data. Haven't picked any names yet.
> (2) Even so, can I (we) be assured that having a "golden" list like this
> will NOT diminish our standards with the regular list.
Yes, we will not be dumping a bunch of grey entries into any of
the existing lists.
> 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).
Yes, that's what should happen. The FPs per existing list should
remain stable or be further improved. That remains a goal.
> 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."
I agree. We should not let that happen. As far as I'm concerned our
biggest challenge is reducing FPs. We're already doing a good
job of catching spam.
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
More information about the Discuss