[SURBL-Discuss] Proposing a greylist

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Thu Sep 2 08:45:01 CEST 2004

On Thursday, September 2, 2004, 7:09:27 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
> I am officially proposing a greylist surbl. 

> We are going to see more and more of this stuff. We might as well deal with
> it now. I'm suggesting a greylist for all spammers that ride that line. Like
> the euniverse junk we have been talking about. 

> 1)We DO NOT include it in multi. 
> 2)We SCREAM to the world that it WILL hit some legit, and that only hard
> liners should use.
> 3)We DON'T remove domains unless they go completely black, or have no NANAS
> hits for 3-4 months. 
> 4)See number 2 again.
> 5)We tell people it is completely optional and to see number 2.

> I predict it would be used more for personal emails. IT also gives us an in
> between mechanism. Rather then list or no list. We get a grey list we
> desperately need. 

I'd rather focus on black lists for the upstream mail servers.

Greylists are messier, more time-consuming, difficult to
categorize, error-prone, controversial, and subjective
than black or white lists.  We can already see how much
effort a few borderline cases consume.  Creating and
maintaining these as a third category would multiply that.

If we make greylists, they will be misapplied, legitimate
mails will be blocked, people will (somewhat rightly)
complain, and our reputation will be damaged.

I know it would perhaps be more fun to play the "find every
spammer" game, but I think we should instead focus on
improving the quality of the data we already have.

When we can get the FP rate of WS below 0.01%, then maybe
we can think about greylists....  ;-)

Jeff C.

More information about the Discuss mailing list