Hi!
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.
Very small overlap.... not worth much time to talk about imho.
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.
True.
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.
Ther eis really LOW feed on the webforms. And indeed, all is manually
checked there so i dont see a the point. To take the discussion elewhere,
why not rescore Spamcop, Spamhaus ect ect ect also. I also see zombie
stuff appearing in more then 1 list. For me its working fine as it is, and
as stated before in the discussion., people will see less spam tagged if
we change the scheme. The FP rate is really low, at least on my end. And
we process quitte some. I personally think the fuzz is not worth the
touble. There are various regular rules that give exactly the same results
when it comes to FP levels. And those we cannot 'whitelist', if people
report to SURBL or URIBL they CAN be made exeptions.
Bye,
Raymond.
