[SURBL-Discuss] whitelist senderbase top domains?

Alex Broens surbl at alexb.ch
Thu Sep 9 13:27:49 CEST 2004

Jeff Chan wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 8, 2004, 12:44:34 AM, Bill Landry wrote:
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: "Jeff Chan" <jeffc at surbl.org>
>>>Looks like senderbase.org has a database of the domains and IPs
>>>used to send the most mail.  Normally that would not be too
>>>interesting to us since we care about message body URIs, i.e.
>>>content, and not senders or their ISP addresses, but I'm thinking
>>>about whitelisting all the legitimate NSPs, ISPs and telcos in
>>>their top domains list:
>>>  http://www.senderbase.org/search?page=domains
>>>we would exclude the few that appear to be spammers according to
>>>  imgmailer.com         TAM Network
>>>  stocksntalk.com       iMedia Networks Inc.
>>>  havagreatday.com
>>>But I'd like to whitelist all the rest which are obviously
>>>large ISPs, etc.  In essence we're just using it as a list
>>>of some of the top ISPs in the world.
>>>Does anyone have any comments on this?
>>I like this idea as I believe it would cut down the number of
>>false-positives due to false-listings.
>>>Note that this won't have a major effect on bad guys since
>>>spammers would not have much incentive to advertise their ISPs,
>>>and we don't "whiten" spams for mentioning non-spam domains
>>>anyway.  It also does not mean that we're whitelisting the ISP
>>>address space, senders, or anything like that, just mail that
>>>mentions these large ISP URIs.
> Does anyone else have comments about whitelisting the ISP
> and NSP domains mentioned on the senderbase top domains page?
> To repeat, this would only be listing the ISP and NSP's own
> domains.  It does not mean whitelisting their customers, their
> IP space, their name servers, the mail servers, etc.
> Jeff C.

I'd exclude:

Pls don't ask me to justify. To me they're either black, dark grey or 
abused or don't care if.....


More information about the Discuss mailing list