> For stuff like this, I think the only thing I would maybe like to see is a
> comment in the file that indicates it could be an issue and where to
> comment
> it out.  This makes everybody happy.  You get to stay a hard @zz.  And the
> folks that use BE are empowered to edit or skip the section that is known
> to possibly cause a problem in some environments.

Agreed.  BigEvil is not a standard ruleset, so one would hope that the
users of the file have *some* idea what the implications might be if they
install it, and what to do if it doesn't work out for them.  If this does
become a new spammer tactic, then making the comment on a BigEvil match
very explicit about what happened and what to do (or a pointer to a web
page with that information) sounds like a good idea though.

Another tactic to prevent this taking off might be to point the operators
of the legitimate lists at the BigEvil homepage, explaining what it is and
why their mailing has been blocked.  Perhaps if that can be combined that
with a quick CGI based check to see if a given domain is listed it would
enable the list operators to make an informed decision in future.  They
could refuse the advert (and preferably future business with that client)
or they could decide to proceed anyway, but with the knowledge that their
newsletter might be classified as spam.

Andy

Reply via email to