[SURBL-Discuss] Re: Possible large whitelist from DMOZ data

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Thu Oct 7 11:04:49 CEST 2004

On Wednesday, October 6, 2004, 11:26:33 AM, Daniel Quinlan wrote:

> I would not suggest using either to whitelist automatically, but if you
> get several of these sources and count the number of hits for each
> domain, then you should be able to prioritize and possibly automatically
> whitelist the ones that hit in a large number of databases.

Let us know if you think of any others.  dmoz and wikipedia
hadn't occurred to me before.

Can anyone think of any other large, hand-built or checked
directories or databases of (legitimate) URIs?

Is it possible to pull URIs out of semantic webs?

> I would also take snapshots, but for a different reason than the one
> Jeff suggested.  I would take snapshots and take the intersection of two
> snapshots for each source (two separate days of DMOZ, etc.) as the
> authoritative list since some spammer links (especially if added by some
> bot) will drop off once they are found.

Those are all good ideas.  Do you know if spammer links do get
deleted?  How do the folks who maintain the sites find abusers
or bots?

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

More information about the Discuss mailing list