Mailing-List: contact spamassassin-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 01:45:51 -0800
From: Jeff Chan <jeffc@surbl.org>
Reply-To: Jeff Chan <jeffc@surbl.org>
Message-ID: <1577685710.20040403014551@supranet.net>
To: SpamAssassin Developers <SpamAssassin-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Announcing SpamCopURI 0.08 support of SURBL for spam URI domain
 tests
In-Reply-To: <93922630.20040403012944@supranet.net>
References: <20040402232714.05E3759001D@radish.jmason.org>
 <yf23c7loqnc.fsf@proton.pathname.com>
 <1953749737.20040402162524@supranet.net>
 <yf2wu4xmpdb.fsf@proton.pathname.com> <93922630.20040403012944@supranet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Saturday, April 3, 2004, 1:29:44 AM, Jeff Chan wrote:
> On Saturday, April 3, 2004, 12:34:24 AM, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>>      domain name
>>        check name servers in other blacklists
>>        check registrar
>>        check age of domain (SenderBase information)
>>        check ISP / IP block owner (SenderBase, SBL, etc.)

> name
> servers, registrars, ISP address blocks, and similar approaches
> are overly broad

I should add that I fully understand that there are rogue
ISPs, rogue name servers, rogue netblocks, etc., all of
which deserve something much stronger than simply being
rejected, blocked or blackholed.  But SBL aside, it can be
difficult to successfully identify the true bad guys using
the above without catching too many innocents in the same
net.

That said, I use several of these other RBLs myself.  I'm
not necessarily opposed to them, but feel our approach with
SURBL *adds* something hopefully new and effective.

Jeff C.
-- 
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org-nospam
http://www.surbl.org/