[SURBL-Discuss] Re: embedded image spams

Sean Sowell sean at twin-dad.com
Tue May 31 04:31:27 CEST 2005

On May 30, 2005 1802 Jeff C. wrote

> 1. Please don't use SA scores as an absolute indication of
> spammyness.  It's crucial to manually review the submissions
> and not report legitimate domains like dell.com, directv,
> walmart, etc.  Please don't report those!

> 2. Please do continue to use SpamCop for reporting.  Even in mole
> mode, we get the URI reports.

> 3. But's it's crucial to NOT report legitimate domains.  Frankly
> the only domains I'm interested in blacklisting are the ones that
> are advertised by criminal spam gangs, i.e. the ones usually
> advertising viagra, porn, pirated software or mortgages, etc.

OK, for general purposes I see why the spamvertised domains should not be
blacklisted.  I only started using SA on 5/19.  Have been reading thru their
faq and wiki, and can see how the 600 rules it uses can at times cancel each
other out.  I haven't seen a reason to change the default threshold yet but
that may change.

For me, it helps to see who's letting their stuff or their logo appear in
spamvertisements.  At some point - in my book anyway - they move from the
innocent bystander column into a gray area and across the spectrum toward
black.  Just my point of view.

I do review my submissions carefully.  I include the spamvertised domain(s)
in my reports so they know their marks are being used improperly and can
take steps to end it.  That way, the spammers get it from both ends.  Seems
fair to me, but please let me know if my thinking is flawed.



More information about the Discuss mailing list