[SURBL-Discuss] namesdatabase . com

Justin Mason jm at jmason.org
Mon Oct 4 08:14:45 CEST 2004


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Rob McEwen writes:
> >I guess we need to come to some 
> >kind of consensus on what is the higher
> 
> Sorry... I haven't been reading the list messages as closely as in the past
> few days as unusual (my computer crashed a few days ago and I've been
> setting up a new system this weekend)
> 
> ...but I did catch this message from Bill, and I couldn't help but think
> "haven't we been here before and didn't we already debate this stuff
> endlessly and didn't we already come to several fairly strong decisions?"
> 
> I think that the basic idea behind SURBL is that we want mail administrators
> using SURBL to be able to use it in a "set it and forget it mode" there they
> practically never have to audit it or check behind it and can sleep well at
> night knowing that the chances of getting a call the next morning from an
> angry client regarding blocked mail practically never happens with regard to
> SURBL-blocked mail.
> 
> 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"

Yep.  bear in mind that many mail admins *are* using high-FP bls like
SPEWS, and *don't even realise what that means*.

I know because SpamAssassin's mailing list host is listed in SPEWS ;)

I'm 100% behind Jeff's position here; "set and forget" is the only
*useful* mode for a BL, even if that means it doesn't hit 100%
of the spam out there.

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFBYOpVQTcbUG5Y7woRAktHAJ4jQq5+5LRAIn4u7Xm2/t59AXuoeACeOcTY
FMMTmIsvmcON9BwIx0m8a34=
=dNVX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Discuss mailing list