On Monday, March 29, 2004, 3:35:07 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Jeff Chan wrote: >> >> Yes Eric and I discussed this approach, and I know others have >> also, but I tend to think it could be overbroad and could catch >> too many innocent domains. For example, a non-rogue ISP who got >> burned by a spamming (ex-)customer could poison the legitimate >> domains of all their other customers who use the same name >> servers. >> >> Our feeling is that addressing the *domains that actually >> appear in spam* is more direct and therefore much less prone >> to collateral damage.
> Yes, this is why you have to be careful about the nameservers that are > blacklisted. They must be controlled by spammers rather than merely used > by spammers, which is why the SBL is an appropriate blacklist for this > purpose. I appreciate your feedback. Certainly known spam gangs should be tracked and blocked where ever they can be found, and SBL is a good way to do that. We're not really suggesting the SURBL replace SBL, but they certainly could and probably should be used together. SURBL is meant to be more like frosting on an existing cake. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sc.surbl.org/
