[SURBL-Discuss] Whitelist all Bonded Senders?

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Wed Sep 8 00:14:34 CEST 2004


On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, 8:37:49 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
>>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc at surbl.org]

>>On Saturday, September 4, 2004, 2:01:05 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
>>>> >> How about www.senderbase.org ?
>>
>>>> > I would not go that way, people can test on 
>>senderbase/bonded sender, and 
>>>> > just like habaes this will be abused also. In my SA setup 
>>the above scores 
>>>> > are also taken, and will bias the score...
>>
>>>> Are any of them grey?   Bonded sender claims they have paid out
>>>> only tiny amounts of bonds due to violations.
>>>> 
>>>> Remember that not everyone uses SA.  I'd like to have a list of
>>>> non-spammers to exclude from SURBLs.
>>
>>> I have requested rsync access on the zones, they have 
>>responded to that 
>>> and we will setup a feed, afterwards i can have a look on 
>>the zones, and 
>>> check a little better. More indepth... 
>>
>>Sounds perfectly reasonable.  We can check if any of their
>>customers hit our lists.
>>
>>Are there any other nominally whitehatting organizations
>>we could check into?  Are there any real whitehat
>>certification groups?

> Anyone who mentions DMA will be introduced to my hockey stick!

> Just want to make sure we are all clear on that one ;)

> -note- DMA = Direct Marketers Assoc. = the evil empire

OK, but are there any whitehat organizations we should consider
looking at for "whitening" like Bonded Sender?

Jeff C.



More information about the Discuss mailing list