[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