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

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Thu Sep 2 19:23:27 CEST 2004

On Thursday, September 2, 2004, 7:28:16 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
(Jeff Chan wrote:)
>>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.

> I could be totally wrong... but I suspect that the lack of commonality may
> be more due to either the MT-blacklist not being updated as frequently or
> because the MT-blacklist may not be updated as extensively.

> A good test may be to "Google" some more frequently found SURBL-blocked
> domains which are not on the MT-blacklist along with the phrase "moveable
> type" ...you might find a lot of blog-comment spam which should have been on
> the MT-blacklist and is already in SURBL.

Hmm, interesting.  Other comments also seem to suggest that the
blog spammers are sometimes the same as mail spammers.  So maybe
there should be more overlap, but additions to MT-blacklist are
slower than SURBLs.

On the other hand, our databases are pretty far reaching and
should have hit on even older blog spam domains, yet they
largely didn't.

The quick and easy answer, which may be wrong, is that they're
different folks, or at least different domains.

Jeff C.

More information about the Discuss mailing list