On Friday, February 17, 2006, 4:04:42 PM, Matt Kettler wrote: > Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
>>>>> I consider that "highly similar" for JP, SC, AB, OB and WS. >>>> >>>> As similar as 30 and 40, and 0, .3 and 7 are, I suppose. >> >>> On another paw how "independent" are these lists? Do any inherit from >>> other >>> lists or are they all separately maintained? >> >> They use different datasources and no cross links between them. If there >> is a real nasty one we could/would talk about it on the private list but >> thats really sporadic. > Untrue. AB and SC use a common data source, spamcop reports. However, each has > it's own processing/listing criteria and each is separately maintained. AB and SC is the only exception in that they're both based on SpamCop spamvertised site reports, but as you correctly note, they're processed differently. > And, realistically, since WS and uribl accept direct reports from more-or-less > anyone, their data sources could be redundant with any other URIBLs depending > on > what the > It's really straight forward for an end-user to report the email to spamcop, > then report the spamverized URI to WS and URIBL_BLACK via web forms. Dallas said less than 1% of the URIBL records come from user reports. Unless the SARE ninjas are still processing the public reports into WS, which I doubt, far fewer public reports get onto WS. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
