[SURBL-Discuss] Re: Applying SURBL against blog comment spammers

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Thu Sep 2 07:56:55 CEST 2004

On Thursday, September 2, 2004, 6:36:29 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
>>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc at surbl.org]

>>We could perhaps set up a separate SURBL for blog spammers.
>>It would be a slight shift in focus since the other SURBLs are
>>all for email spam.  Can you give an idea of how many records
>>you have?
>>Also have you tried Jay Allen's MT-Blacklist/Comment Spam
>>  http://www.jayallen.org/comment_spam/
>>It would be interesting to look at your data to see if there's
>>much overlap with our existing lists.  In the case of Jay's data,
>>there's nearly none.

> Hell I'm feeling a little saucy this morning so lets mull this over. This
> goes against Jeff's thoughts. But if they are spamming, then just add them
> to SURBL. Does it matter if they spam email or blogs? To me, not really.
> Adding them to the regular SURBL is sure to cause them some pain. 

> Legit domains still get removed. 

I'd probably lean towards a separate list if we set one up, since
the data are of a different source type (web logs vs mail) and
use.  It would be a convenience for blog maintainers.  It might
be interesting to see how a blog spam list would do against mail
spam, but judging by the lack of overlap, I would predict it not
too relevant against mail.

Given the lack of commonality, it may not make much sense to
add to the mail spam lists, since it would be an extra 2000+
records that would probably not get hits on mail.

The MT-Blacklist doesn't seem to update too frequently (the
last new record was from 8/29) and has about 2000 records.
Matthew's list was pretty sparse so far.  So I'm still
pondering things.

Comments welcome!

Jeff C.

More information about the Discuss mailing list