Tuesday, May 4, 2004, 9:42:14 AM, Marc wrote: MP> For what it is worth - I support it. I definitely want to block MP> exposure to fraud of my users.
Agreed. The Phishing SURBL sounds like a good idea to me. I see no conflict with a company doing commercial work also offering a public service. Bob Menschel MP> Jeff Chan wrote: >>David Hooton of Platform Networks has been converting the >>proprietary SpamAssassin message content filtering rules of >>MailSecurity.net.au into SURBLs. The data's being organized into >>separate SURBLs, for example pharma, phishing, and other spams. >>In order to give something back to the SURBL/SA community and the >>Internet in general, he is proposing to make the phishing data >>freely available for potential inclusion by Bill Stearns in >>ws.surbl.org. >> >>Access to the other lists would be sold commercially, but the >>phishing data would be a potentially useful spam/fraud/crime >>fighting tool to make available to everyone, while hopefully >>creating some recognition for their other lists. A preliminary >>web page describing the phishing list is at: >> >> http://www.mailsecurity.net.au/phish/ >> >>Dave describes the status of the phishing list as public in that: >>"We're going to release our phishing attack list publicly and it >>will remain that way for the duration of it's life. The only >>attachment to my business will be that we use it as well & that >>it will be maintained by my staff." The site will get a phishing >>spam form added for public submissions before it goes live. >>Their phishing data sources include spamtraps and feeds from >>other organizations. >> >>Dave asked me to bring up this idea for some discussion and >>feedback, and he's on these lists so feel free to reply here. >> >>How do people feel about adding this data to a public SURBL? >>Does this kind of division of free and commercial uses seem >>ok? Would any of the SURBL public name servers have any >>issues with an arrangement like this? >> >>Jeff C.
