[SURBL-Discuss] Re: RFC: How to use new data source: URIs
advertised through CBL-listed senders
jeffc at surbl.org
Wed Apr 20 01:40:00 CEST 2005
On Tuesday, April 19, 2005, 10:34:17 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Jeff Chan wrote:
>> 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.
> Your concept of "black lists" is too black, or in other words
Hmm, perhaps "wrong" is a little (too) strong statement. SURBLs
as they are currently defined are proving quite useful for many
> Nobody uses say *.whois.rfc-ignorant.org to block all
> *.co.uk domains. That's no reason to close this list, it's
> still useful for scoring.
Sure, but that's a different list, with a different purpose.
> What you can't (or rather shouldn't) do is to _mix_ different
> concepts in one combined lists like MULTI actually meant to
> block. But in separate lists you can do anything you like.
True, but for overhead reasons and general project focus, we're
going to try to stick to blacklists and multi.
> For XS I don't see your problem, it could be a part of MULTI.
> Bye, Frank
Yes, we're just testing xs separately for now to see how it's
performing, tune it further, try some different processing
options, etc. If we can get it to work well, we will add it
to multi, as you suggest. :-)
This is how we also brought most of the other new lists like OB,
JP, PH, etc. into SURBLs: test first and add to multi later.
So it anyone has some results to share we'd like to see them.
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
More information about the Discuss