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

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Sat Apr 23 10:07:04 CEST 2005

On Wednesday, April 20, 2005, 10:10:48 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Jeff Chan wrote:
>> 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.

It doesn't really fit our model, which is to list blackhats,
especially zombie users.

> 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.

It is possible to blacklist nina.18.to but not 18.to
if nina is owned by spammers but 18 is not.

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

More information about the Discuss mailing list