On 10/7/2013 10:37 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 10/7/2013 7:42 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
This is harming more then it does good. But its your list so your
rules ;) I would not want to use it to filter my mails with it but hey
Since this is in its early development, it is probably too early to
judge it too much. But from what I've read in this discussion, it is
"light years" away from the current major URI/domain blacklists out
there (SURBL, URIBL, ivmURI, DBL)... BUT... Kevin is brilliant so who
knows what it might eventually become?
Thanks. You're quite kind. I've helped with some of the other lists but
what I'm trying to focus on is tools and methods to identify spam and
spammers.
ALSO...There is an argument that a more-aggressive-than-normal AND
low-scoring URI list may be helpful? In that sense, URIBL.com has
traditionally been considered slightly more aggressive than the other
lists mentioned above... SLIGHTLY! Maybe something much MORE aggressive,
intended for very low scoring... would be useful? (this would be
situations where bayes or checksum content filters add points to the
spam score combined with such an aggressive URI list putting the message
"over the top"... but then skipping blocking a legit message with this
URI because it didn't have the other content points added and thus
didn't score high enough--at least that is the idea)
I think some aggression is needed because as DFS and others put it, they
need an impetus to change their methods. For example, we can't just
allow companies carte-blanche to spam and give commissions to spammers
but then claim they aren't spammers by just saying "it's our 3rd party
partners).
The good news is that cvent took notice of the blocking and contacted me
offlist so I've removed their domains from the RBL while I discuss
things with them in good faith towards improving their anti-spam procedures.
Regards,
KAM
