[SURBL-Discuss] safe.surbl.org concerns

Chris Santerre csanterre at MerchantsOverseas.com
Mon Nov 15 19:49:30 CET 2004

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc at surbl.org]
>Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 9:36 PM
>To: 'SURBL Discussion list'
>Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] safe.surbl.org concerns
>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
>> FPs?)
>Yes, but it seems really difficult to achieve perfection in any
>given list.
>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.

I agree with Jeff. The ONLY list that is getting grey domains added is the
UC list. Which is NOT an official SURL.org list. And it isn't ready for
prime time yet. 

Lowering the FP rate in WS is the first and foremost goal for many
contributors. WS will be as close to zero FP as we can humanly get. 


More information about the Discuss mailing list