[SURBL-Discuss] RFC: pj.surbl.org - list from Joe Wein and Pr olocation data

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Sun Sep 19 02:49:00 CEST 2004

On Friday, September 17, 2004, 11:53:07 AM, Patrik Nilsson wrote:
> Chris Santerre wrote:
>> AS usual, I'm thinking different from everyone else :) 
>> I do NOT like the idea of more lists. 

> Neither do I. At least not more surbl-type lists that are served by 
> surbl.org.

> I'd prefer just one surbl.org-list, serving entries from a few sources 
> all confirming to the strict "we do not want any FPs" philosophy of 
> surbl. One manually checked list that can relatively safely be used to 
> block/drop email, rather than just score email.

In principle all the lists except OB are hand-checked.  In
the case of SC, the checking is done by SpamCop submitters
who can be a little inconsistent, which is why we add
mechanisms to limit mistakes such as an inclusion threshold
dependent on the number of reports.

In a practical sense there is one list which most people
will use: multi.

I agree about working towards a list which is useful for
dropping spams.  Such a list needs to have very low FPs.
Zero would be ideal, though that's arguably impossible.

> Then I'd like to see a lot of surbl-type lists *not* served by 
> surbl.org, that are provided based on different philosophies - more 
> aggressive, accepting a higher degree of collateral damage, etc.

> Just like we have with RBLs.

I agree that having a diversity of data sources is probably
useful.  Which is why I was glad to hear that the mailpolice
lists could be used with SURBL code with some good results.

> I want an SBL type surlb list, and I think surbl.org is the prime 
> candidate for that.

> But I also want a SPEWS type surbl list, and I don't think that it 
> should or could be done/served by surbl.org.

> Etc.

A very aggressive list could be useful for home users, but SURBLs
will have the most impact if we get the data clean enough for
large providers to use.  It would be nice to stop spam before it
ever reaches users, i.e. at the ISP level, but FPs get in the way
of that.  Therefore a list with lower FPs such as PJ is
potentially quite useful.

> Having more and more different surbl.org lists that we try to fit into 
> the same basic philosophy of "no FPs" is just complicating things and 
> confusing existing and potential users.

> Patrik

Most SA users probably just use the default rules, so if we get
PJ into the standard config file, there should not be much
confusion.  And we already have individual SUBRL lists like
ws, sc, ob, ab.

Jeff C.

More information about the Discuss mailing list