[SURBL-Discuss] Whitelist Please

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Fri Sep 10 02:14:34 CEST 2004

On Thursday, September 9, 2004, 2:49:41 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Jeff Chan wrote:

(Breidbart Index)

> Yes, it's only the principle which is interesting, use some
> simple and objective criteria as far as possible.  You have
> already some good algorithms like "domains inherit the values
> known for other domains with the same IP".

> That's the stuff I like, it makes sense, and it works always
> the same way

Yes, and we will use them where we can.

>> http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelist-hits.new.log
>> I see approximately zero.  :-)

> Did you count tripod.cl ?  That's an extremely ignorant hoster
> of many spamvertized pages.  Wanadoo.es also had some dubious
> customers.  Or does this data exclude spamvertized subdomains ?

Too many legitimate mentions.  These are large hosting providers.
We can't block on them.  We generally don't list subdomains, only
registrar domains.

(Chris and Ryan and Raymond, don't even think about proposing
a subdomain list.  LOL!  ;-)

>> There are some registrars that seem to register a lot of spam
>> domains.

> DirectI.  In theory this should be better in 2006.  The new
> ICANN WDPRS for almost all gTLDs started this year, therefore
> the problems should be obvious early in 2005, and then rogue
> registrars fix their procedures or risk their accreditation.

Excellent.  It's about time ICANN cracked down on rogue

> We obviously agree on "don't harm innocents" as an excuse to
> overrule SC votes, but that's not exactly the same as "legit".

I think that needs to be key.  Minimize collateral damage, and
maximize spam listings.  We try to optimize both simultaneously.

There will always be disagreement about that optimization point.
That is natural.  (It's also a PITA.)

For someone to suggest that we have not "drawn a line" is
ignorant and unfair.  I think the 60,000+ spammers we have
listed would feel otherwise also.

Jeff C.

More information about the Discuss mailing list