[SURBL-Discuss] Whitelist Please

Justin Mason jm at jmason.org
Wed Sep 1 15:03:25 CEST 2004

Hash: SHA1

Jeff Chan writes:
> On Wednesday, September 1, 2004, 11:42:23 AM, Jeff Chan wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 1, 2004, 5:47:11 AM, Bitz Bitz wrote:
> >> http://www.funnygreetings.com
> >> Listed at WS_URI_RBL
> >> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=5.1 required=10.0 tests=RATWR10_MESSID=0.111,
> >>         WS_URI_RBL=5
> >> Thanks,
> >> -b.
> > I've whitelisted: funnygreetings.com
> > It belongs to euniverse.  I've added it to these other euniverse
> > domains:
> > euniverse.com
> > flowgo.com
> > skilljam.com
> > cupidjunction.com
> > dietingplans.com
> > intelligentx.com
> > netlaughter.com
> > cutestuf.com
> > madblast.com
> > infobeat.com
> > gossipflash.com
> > funnygreetings.com
> The reason for whitelisting all of them is that they all belong
> to euniverse.  While I agree that these "spam to your friends
> with jokes, greetings, prayers, whatever" sites are stupid and
> highly abuse-prone, they do have some legitimate uses and should
> probably not be blocked globally.
> The other rationale is that euniverse is either a spamhaus or
> not.  While it's possible they're highly clueless in their
> subscription policies, it seems odd to me that one part of
> their operation would be somewhat responsible, and another
> part would be blatantly spamming.  Unless they've partitioned
> their mail servers along those lines, they would risk getting
> them all shut down by their ISP's AUP, and that would not make
> business sense for them.
> Also I place organizations that use their own mail servers in
> a different class than those who are using zombies, or otherwise
> illegally stealing services to deliver their mail, or are hosted
> or sending from spam-friendly ISPs in rogue nations that we are
> all already aware of.  Anyone who has a fixed mail server can be
> trivially and much more efficiently blocked using a regular RBL
> and they probably don't need to be in a SURBL.  They would be
> more efficiently handled in a RBL such as sbl.spamhaus.org.  If
> the SBL sighting is correct, perhaps euniverse already is.
> That all said, I'm willing to consider taking flowgo.com off
> the whitelist if people agree that domain is more spammy than
> legitimate.

BTW -- one problem I've observed with flowgo as it relates to SURBL, is
that users forward their URLs a *lot*.   So even if flowgo send spam, a
mail that contains a flowgo URL often is not at all spammy -- just a
person-to-person "here's a funny webpage" mail.

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


More information about the Discuss mailing list