[SURBL-Discuss] Proposing a greylist
Raymond Dijkxhoorn
raymond at prolocation.net
Thu Sep 2 19:05:37 CEST 2004
Hi!
> > 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
applications.
> > 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...
Bye,
Raymond.
More information about the Discuss
mailing list