[SURBL-Discuss] Proposing a greylist

Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems) rob at powerviewsystems.com
Thu Sep 2 13:29:04 CEST 2004

> Good idea. Let's do it. I'll be able to submit more domains to *this*
> list than I could to ws. It will finally give meaning to that pile of
> domains I always end up with and get ulcers trying to classify as black
> or white.

For the record... and just to be sure... I vote that unconfirmed.surbl.org NOT contain those things that we tend to agree with as NOT being spam, but sometimes gets reported as spam by end users.

For example, people sometimes forget that they really DID subscribe to a particular newsletter, and then complain about it as being spam. The SallyFoster.com site is a great example where a one-time e-mail is sent only at the request of a relative or friend. Another example is a legitimate newsletter with an open-loop signup page where someone signed up their friends or enemies (without their knowledge) for the newsletter.... not good practice, but if it represents a tiny fraction of that newletter's distribution, the newsletter is otherwise totally opt-in, and there are few to none NANAS hits... then this kind of stuff shouldn't get on the greylist.

Instead, unconfirmed.surbl.org ought to be for those really hard to classify things that ARE getting NANAS hits, that DO hit spamtraps, but that have enough legitimate purposes to not get placed in the regular SURBL lists.

If this advice is not heeded, then unconfirmed.surbl.org will get too convoluted and too bulky to be effective.

Rob McEwen

More information about the Discuss mailing list