On Monday, July 19, 2004, 11:30:11 PM, Loren Wilton wrote: >> Doing a little preliminary checking of this particular dataset >> leads me to wonder a little how appropirate it might be for >> SURBLs.
> I would philosophically be somewhat against it being part of SURBL, in that > sex sites per se aren't spam - they just sit there and you have to go find > them for the most part. Which makes me wonder why having a list of the > domains would be interesting to a mail filter. > Of course, if a sex site is spamming, then it belongs on the list - as a > spammer, not as a sex site. I certainly understand and agree with your point, and we are definitely catching sex sites that get mentioned in spams. They are being included in current SURBLs *because they are spamming*. A list of sex site domains is indeed a different category of thing, and strictly speaking is not part of the SURBL anti-spam focus. Right now I'm leaning against it, but mainly because the data source proposed may contain too many false positives for use as a SURBL. I suppose I should turn it into a list so we can check that. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
