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

Chris Santerre csanterre at merchantsoverseas.com
Tue Oct 12 15:44:05 CEST 2004

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc at surbl.org]
>Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 9:06 PM
>To: SURBL Discussion list
>Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Revised DMOZ data, got Wikipedia domains
>On Saturday, October 9, 2004, 1:09:43 PM, Patrik Nilsson wrote:
>> Just create a separate "TLDs or treat as TLDSs" zone that 
>can be checked 
>> and cached client side.
>> Or even better - give "TLDs or treat as TLDSs" a 
>distinguished A value in 
>> existing lists.
>> If a lookup returns XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX, it is a "TLD or treat 
>as TLD" and 
>> should be further recursed.
>> If we think there is a risk that some bad client 
>implementatins treat any 
>> returned A record as a hit, use TXT records.
>This is still an interesting idea, but I'd still be somewhat
>concerned about putting out a list that looks like a regular
>SURBL that it could get misused.
>But perhaps the larger issues is that the hard core spammers
>don't seem to use *subdomains of legitimate shared-domain
>hosting providers*.  They just register their own full domain
>names and use those (lots of them).
>If some legitimate hosting provider has an abuse issue,
>then it's in their own interest to stop the abuse.
>SURBLs are arguably best suited for cases where the ISP
>is spam-friendly and allows spam hosting on custom domains.
>The reality is that's a much larger and tougher problem
>than shared, common-domain hosting, like a geocities or
>The best use of our time is to focus on the biggest spammers
>first, and we're not catching all of those yet.

Big surprise...I disagree :-) 

I think we are already reviewing these domains, so why not just add to catch
the smaller ones instead of throwing them away.

But I see your vision, and I can bend like the reed ;)

But given enough time, and perhaps enough chocolate, I think I can turn you
around :-)


More information about the Discuss mailing list