[SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com

Chris Santerre csanterre at MerchantsOverseas.com
Mon Oct 25 22:23:32 CEST 2004



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc at surbl.org]
>Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 4:05 PM
>To: SURBL Discuss
>Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com
>
>
>On Monday, October 25, 2004, 12:55:07 PM, Chris Santerre wrote:
>>>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc at surbl.org]
>
>>>Might it be better to set up the blog spam domains as a separate
>>>list inside multi, but testing them first?  We would still want
>>>to find a way to minimize collateral damage and keep otherwise
>>>legitimate domains off a blog list.
>>>
>
>> Legitimate domains like greatnow.com? 
>
>> http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com
>> http://www.viaga-viagra.greatnow.com
>> http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com
>> http://generic-cialis.greatnow.com
>> http://www.ed.greatnow.com/
>> http://www.bulk-email.greatnow.com 
>> http://www.bonds.greatnow.com 
>> http://www.1-dating.greatnow.com 
>> http://www.credit-card.greatnow.com 
>> http://www.car-insurance.greatnow.com 
>
>Probably every free hosting site has abuse, but most have far
>more legitimate uses than abusive ones.   greatnow may be an
>exception.  I did find a ton of blog spam for it on google, as
>you suggested.  The real question is how much legitimate use they
>have.  I did apparently find some, but it doesn't mean they're a
>whitehat.  They could be a blackhat with a few incidental or
>unintentional legitimate users.  :-(
>
>The question deserves some research.  The reason I brought them
>up is because some had an apparent legitimate use for
>greatnow.com.  That's usually a reason to not list them.
>
>> We got the UC list covered. It isn't in the SURBL group. You 
>don't have to
>> worry about it.
>
>> --Chris
>
>If we're thinking about setting up a blog list (as we were
>earlier), then it might be useful to test the data before using
>it, don't you agree?
>
>I don't see how dumping lists with arbitrary FPs onto UC helps
>either UC or SURBLs.  In fact it's one of the bad things we
>predicted: that a grey list would become a dumping ground with
>some FPs and some domains that belong on a blocklist, all sitting
>there underclassified, unchecked or ignored.

They are NOT going unchecked. UC is still in beta form right now. So we are
testing. Most people have no clue where the server is as it is NOT part of
SURBL, so UC.SURBL.ORG doesn't work. Not a dumping ground at all. It will be
as active as WS. 

I fully intend to mirror most of what goes into WS into UC. UC will simply
have a different policy. Grey domains need to be considered. UC will do
that. You said yourself earlier you didn't want to be any part of a list
that handled grey domains. That it would waste time. So you don't have to
worry about UC. 

UC will get as much attention to detail as I put into WS. I just won't
delete grey domains, like I do now. I will instead list then in UC. 

I predict UC won't be ready for prime time for a few weeks at least. And it
will be its own animal, not part of the SURBL group. 

It is also a group effort. As working on this myself would drive me crazier
then I am. 

--Chris


More information about the Discuss mailing list