[SURBL-Discuss] RFC: SURBL inclusion policy

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Sun Sep 26 11:35:00 CEST 2004

On Sunday, September 26, 2004, 2:16:45 AM, Alex Broens wrote:
> If a spammy looking msg comes thru an exploited system IMO it would
> qualify even more to be a SURBL inclusion as a genuine "marketer" would 
> not be expected to use exploited machines, right?

That's definitely true, and one of the things I usually look
for in SURBL listing candidates.  (I thought you were referring
to checking URI domains against XBL, which probably would not
catch much.) 

XBL is an excellent list of spam senders, by far the biggest
catcher of spam senders in my regular RBLs, so it probably
would be good as a header check for GetURI also.  Ryan can
we make this a feature request?

As we mentioned earlier, zombies are a major reason for
SURBLs to exist.  If someone uses fixed mail senders, those
are easily blocked using regular RBLs.  SURBLs are a largely
a response to zombies, since without consistent mail
senders to look for, content, specifically spam advertised
web sites was the next logical thing, IMO.

Jeff C.
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."

More information about the Discuss mailing list