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

Justin Mason jm at jmason.org
Fri Oct 8 21:11:17 CEST 2004

Hash: SHA1

Alex Broens writes:
> 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.

Your user base, maybe.  But I can't see how you can justify assuming that
everyone who uses SURBL has the same user base.    I'd never assume that
SpamAssassin should not be usable by someone who may expect to receive
mail from their kids regarding an angelfire-hosted school project like
http://www.angelfire.com/on2/thrillsandchills/ , for example.

> 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.

are "we"?

I'm certainly filtering. ;)

Is "fighting spam" and "putting pressure on so called whitehats" a
goal of surbl.org?

This attitude is what makes SPEWS useless.

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


More information about the Discuss mailing list