[SURBL-Discuss] Additional phish/fraud list

Bill Landry billl at pointshare.com
Sat Sep 18 02:00:23 CEST 2004


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Chan" <jeffc at surbl.org>
To: "SURBL Discuss" <discuss at lists.surbl.org>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Additional phish/fraud list


> On Friday, September 17, 2004, 4:32:41 PM, Bill Landry wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Jeff Chan" <jeffc at surbl.org>
>
> >> Can you clarify, are your lists intended to be sender domain
> >> lists or message body URI lists:
> > [SNIP]
> >> It sounds from the description that your RHS lists are sender
> >> domains as opposed to message body URI domains as we use
> >> with SURBLs.
> >>
> >> That said, I can see how Bill may have found some overlap with
> >> message body URIs.
>
> > Text from the link I posted with my previous message
> > (http://rhs.mailpolice.com/#rhsfraud):
> > ===================
> > fraud.rhs.mailpolice.com
>
> > Domains and IPs involved in fraudulant activity, commonly referred to as
> > "phishing". These sites appear in e-mail disguised as important notices
from
> > financial institutions (PayPal, EBay, banks), requesting credit card
numbers
> > or logon information. Using this list is highly encouraged when matching
> > URLs inside an e-mail message.
> > ===================
>
> > See the last sentence above.
>
> > Bill
>
> Aha, maybe the other lists are more sender oriented than "fraud"?

All of the other lists are strictly sender oriented.  They are all RHSBLs,
and I have been using the "block" and "dynamic" lists with SA for over a
year.  The "block" list has a hit rate that's as high or higher than the
spamcop ip4r list, and I have found the list to be pretty darn accurate, as
well.

Bill



More information about the Discuss mailing list