From: "Jeff Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Monday, May 17, 2004, 7:02:04 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Rupa Schomaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 12:12 PM
> >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Subject: Re: bigevil fp? seattle photoworks
> >>
> >>
> >>"Christopher X. Candreva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 14 May 2004, Rupa Schomaker wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Any reason in particular it is on the list?
> >>>
> >>> Because they spam.
> >>>
> >>> A lot.
>
> > AAAHhhhhh! But I don't want any FPs on BigEvil. Damn!!! I'm off to think
> > about this one. I'm guessing with the future merge of Bigevil and
> > WS.surbl.org, maybe I will start a shammer list?
>
> If you like. I whitelisted photoworks.com in all of SURBLs.
>
> IMO the correct answer is to not list any partially legitimate
> domains, at least in SURBLs, and to get gray domains (those
> referenced in both spam and ham) to fix any spam problems they
> may have.
Which means the entire black list phenomenon is worthless because
spammer domains will sell space to "popular legitimate businesses"
as a means of getting off the black lists. I believe this is already
being done in a few noteworthy cases.
Perhaps a special "shammer" flag might be used to indicate a domain
is mostly spam but has a little ham on it. Or you might have to
spend the software cycles to catch the special cases and undo the
default spam markup.
{O.O}
