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

Chris Santerre csanterre at merchantsoverseas.com
Fri Oct 8 20:57:51 CEST 2004



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alex Broens [mailto:surbl at alexb.ch]
>Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 12:51 PM
>To: SURBL Discussion list
>Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Revised DMOZ data, got Wikipedia domains
>too
>
>
>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-blocklis
>t.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.

I'm hoping UC list will help with that. Anyone who wishes to use it can add
a minor score to spam for UC hits. This would put at least some sort of
preasure for these grey hats to do something. 


>
>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.

I completely agree, but when working with SURBL I can't use this mindset. I
have to go by Jeff's vision. However with UC its a whole different ball
game. 

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

OUCH!!! I hear ya.....but OUCH! ;)

--Chris


More information about the Discuss mailing list