[SURBL-Discuss] Revised DMOZ data, got Wikipedia domains too

Alex Broens surbl at alexb.ch
Fri Oct 8 18:51:23 CEST 2004

Bill Landry wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Alex Broens" <surbl at alexb.ch>
>>Jeff Chan wrote:
>>>  http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelists/wikipedia-dmoz.srt
>>>Please also take a look at these blocklist hits (potential FPs)
>>>and share what you think:
> http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelists/wikipedia-dmoz-blocklist.summed.txt
>>>Would there be many FNs (missed spams) if we whitelisted all
>>>of these?  In other words are these all truly False Positives?
>>>If not, which ones do you feel are true spammers and why.
>>probably not a new idea, but why not run a "wl.surbl.org" with all the
>>whitelisted domains and ppl can choose to use it or not.
> I like this idea!  Whitelist the most commonly used 1,000 or so domains, and
> then create a wl.surbl.org for the rest of the wikipedia-dmoz domains.

WOW... Bill didn't bark at me this time.

my point is the following:

take for example "angelfire. com". This domain may have legitimate users 
but my user base would NEVER have contact with anybody hosting a site or 
anything there. If they support spam, list them, put pressure on them to 
stop supporting spammers, bla, bla, bla.
I wouldn't appreciate it being whitelisted as then if there's abuse, and 
it does get blacklisted, there's no pressure on the domain holder to 
clean up.

As I imagine we're fighting spam here, not just filtering, I have a 
certain difficulty understanding why the world is crying for 
whitelisting instead of putting pressure on so called whitehats who 
support abuse for a lifetime.

as Chris said, you could make whitelisting a lifetime task.
I believe the better approach would be to decrease potential FP's by 
increasing the reporting QUALITY !!!!!!!!


//Are we fighting Spam or working for Messagelabs & Co. for free? //

More information about the Discuss mailing list