[SURBL-Discuss] RFC: How to use new data source: URIs advertised through CBL-listed senders

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Tue Apr 19 12:57:47 CEST 2005

On Tuesday, April 19, 2005, 2:35:37 AM, John Wilcock wrote:
> John Wilcock wrote:
>> Logically the lower levels would have higher FP rates, but can be given 
>> lower SA scores (or equivalent weightings in other client apps)

> For that matter, it occurs to me that it could actually be a *good* 
> thing if an obscure but legitimate domain gets listed at the lower 
> levels of a multi-level system due to being mentioned in a big spam run, 
> as its presence would, albeit temporarily, be a sign of spamminess.
> This logic wouldn't apply for more commonly-mentioned legitimate 
> domains, but those will be on the SURBL whitelist anyway.

I'm not favor of even intermittent listing of otherwise
legitimate domains.  Remember many of the FPs are innocent
bystanders, like a stock spammer mentioning a legitimate
investment site, a bank phish mentioning a legitimate bank, or a
419er mentioning some news story about their purported country,

It's hard for me to think of a time when it would be a good idea
to blacklist legitimate banks, etc.  Most people don't want to
miss ham from their banks, etc.

> Obviously this only holds in the context of a weighted scoring system 
> such as SpamAssassin, not one which excludes messages outright.

> John.


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

More information about the Discuss mailing list