[SURBL-Discuss] Black, block, red, white, multi (was: RFC: How to use new data source: URIs advertised through CBL-listed senders)

Frank Ellermann 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 is a NoNo).

                     Bye, Frank

More information about the Discuss mailing list