[SURBL-Discuss] namesdatabase . com

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Mon Oct 4 00:45:17 CEST 2004


On Sunday, October 3, 2004, 2:37:45 PM, Patrik Nilsson wrote:
> At 14:16 2004-10-03 -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:

>>I think it's important to share some goals if we are to have
>>meaningful and useful results.

> We did, until obvious spammers started getting whitelisted.

Yes, we will miss some spams.  That's not the question.
The question is do we falsely tag ham and (indirectly)
block someone's legitimate message?  That's what we want
to avoid.  That's an error.

> At 05:09 2004-10-02 -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
>>On Saturday, October 2, 2004, 4:34:34 AM, Patrik Nilsson wrote:
>> > 
>> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b379589.0406081103.7c29a65e%40posting.google.com>
>> > 
>> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2b379589.0406070444.4f892be7%40posting.googl>
>>
>>That's interesting, but that's not the question.  We know the guy
>>behind the site is a piece of brown something.
>>
>>The question is whether it has legitimate uses.  I personally
>>think these sites are mostly abusive scams, but I'd like to know
>>if they have legitimate uses.

> And I think each and every hit on namesdatabase.com in google groups, not 
> just nanas hits, show that you have to stretch your definition of 
> legitimate use beyond reason for it to include namesdatabase.com.

> People being tricked into partaking in scams do not qualify as legit use, 
> even if they don't realize that they are contributing to a scam.

It's not our job to tell people they're stupid.  If they're
using these sites legitimately we don't want to block their
mail.  They will need to get their own clue.  We are not the
clue police.   ;-)

> At 06:58 2004-10-02 -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
>>Like sendafriend, this site is subject to abuse with an open
>>subscription page, and probably has borderline spammers
>>harvesting and marketing behind it, but since it can get
>>mentioned in hams, I am whitelisting sacredpages.com .

> Ok, so now it should be "If it *can* appear in hams, then don't list it.", 
> Not "If it *does" appear..."?

> patrik

To me it's the same.  Ham = don't list.

Jeff C.
--
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."



More information about the Discuss mailing list