[SURBL-Discuss] Spam in progress bit ...

[Eric Montréal]

Peter Bowyer a écrit :
> On 09/08/06, Eric Montréal <erv at mailpeers.net> wrote:
>
>> also, since most legitimate mailing lists are to recipients in close
>> geographic proximity,
>
> Care to quote your data source for this assumption? Your deffinition
> of 'most' and of 'close proximity'?
>
Obviously, I'm not the one running surbl, how could I already have the 
data ?

The point was that, except for very large lists sent from domains that 
will never
be listed by surbl in the first place, most (that means a statistically 
significant
portion) should generate surbl traffic patterns different enough to 
allow distinction
between such a list an a spam list whose recipients are located all 
around the world
and would generate a high number of requests, from very diverse places.

The idea was that data mining in surbl logs (or other RBL / URI services 
queried
by a large number of servers) might enhance accuracy by allowing 
accurate realtime
detection of spams in progress. I might be wrong, or maybe it's not 
surbl's role
to do such analysis.