[SURBL-Discuss] Proposing a greylist

Raymond Dijkxhoorn raymond at prolocation.net
Thu Sep 2 19:05:37 CEST 2004


> > We can include in multi, why not...

> Nope... One of the ideas behind multi is that lazy sysadmins can put
> only one rule and if that hit, then 'subrl hit'.

Lazy sysadmins dont do anything ;)

> I think this MUST NOT be in multi.

I still think it does, it will save lookups also, within most 

> > Anyone ?

> I concord with Steven's comment... this MUST NOT be called 'greylist'
> because that term is already beeing used for something completely
> different... I'd like a name that implies that it WILL have FPs... it
> can be the elegant 'unconfirmed.surbl.org' as Seteven suggested or
> something on the line of 'this-has-false-positives.surbl.org' or
> 'dont-use-this-if-you-re-stupid.surbl.org' :-)

No, greylist is perhaps not the best name for a list like that, evil.surbl 
or something or unfomfirmed fits better.

> IIRC the other items Jeff adds to the whitelist are simply domains
> that hit a FP (like the ones I reportes 10 minutes ago). These MUST
> NOT be whitelisted in the new list, since it would loose its meaning,
> 'cause that's Jeff's way to promptly react to FP's in any list.

Thats no big problem, its two seperate files anyway... 


More information about the Discuss mailing list