[SURBL-Discuss] namesdatabase . com

Ryan Thompson ryan at sasknow.com
Mon Oct 4 08:09:20 CEST 2004

Rob McEwen wrote to 'SURBL Discussion list':

> FOR EXAMPLE: That same mail administrator may have OTHER blocking
> methods that are more aggressive... but he doesn't mind doing more
> auditing and filter adjustments for these because, even though these
> may be more likely to have FPs, these (that got past SURBL and
> whatever conservative RBL checking) represent a rather meager
> percentage of the total spam blocked. In other words, after 10,000
> spams were blocked by SURBL and RBL checking, the mail administrator
> doesn't mind that his OTHER blocking methods which blocked another 800
> messages require some occasional auditing/checking/filter adjusting.
> He is just thinking, "thank God I don't have worry about that pile of
> 10,000 messages"
> Make sense? Isn't that what we already decided? And isn't Ryan's other
> list for "UC" where the just-barely-not-listed in SURBL are suppose to
> go?

Essentially, yes. UC is not more aggressive *by definition*, but it
certainly has the potential to hit on ham, which is why it is, in some
ways, fundamentally different than the SURBL philosophy. I.e., it is not
a "block list", but more of a "spam sign" list. That's where the divide
exists in many of these black/white list discussions. There seem to be
camps of people that think in terms of one, or the other, but
comparatively few people seem to look at both approaches.

I'm confident, though, that once UC grows to a statistically significant
size, the FP rate will nonetheless be quite low indeed.

- Ryan

   Ryan Thompson <ryan at sasknow.com>

   SaskNow Technologies - http://www.sasknow.com
   901-1st Avenue North - Saskatoon, SK - S7K 1Y4

         Tel: 306-664-3600   Fax: 306-244-7037   Saskatoon
   Toll-Free: 877-727-5669     (877-SASKNOW)     North America

More information about the Discuss mailing list