[SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com

[Jeff Chan]

On Monday, October 25, 2004, 9:20:11 PM, Matthew Hunter wrote:
> It should be noted that my definition of "false positive" may
> differ from that of the SURBL overall.  In particular, I don't 
> consider a domain a false positive if someone has attempted to 
> blog-spam me with it -- even if the domain has legitimate uses.  
> The domains I am being spammed with are very obviously 
> porn-related; as my blog is not porn-related they are clearly 
> spam.  

> Whether someone who is into porn and/or willing to pay for 
> porn would have a legitimate use for these domains I can't say.
> So there might be FPs from a SURBL perspective.  But not from 
> mine.

It's definitely good to know about that, as it's a fairly
important difference in philosophies.  To me it says that
such data may be more appropriate for protecting blogs than
they might be for filtering mail.  Of course either is useful,
but perhaps in different applications, as you seem to suggest.

Jeff C.
--
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."