[SURBL-Discuss] Black, block, red, white,
multi (was: RFC: How to use new data source: URIs
advertised through CBL-listed senders)
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Wed Apr 20 19:10:48 CEST 2005
Jeff Chan wrote:
>> Your concept of "black lists" is too black, or in other
>> words wrong.
> Hmm, perhaps "wrong" is a little (too) strong statement.
Okay, let's agree on black != block ;-)
> SURBLs as they are currently defined are proving quite
> useful for many folks.
Sure. But a red.surbl.org "this is an open redirector"
could be also useful. Yesterday I actually missed a
white.surbl.org when I didn't see 18.to in MULTI
If you have whitelisted 18.to please don't, I got more
than three nina.18.to in the last weeks.
Black, white, red, what else ? It's all okay if you
don't mix it in one list, where stupid users would get
it wrong (e.g. SORBS 127.0.0.6 is a NoNo).
More information about the Discuss