On Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 7:53:17 PM, Bob Apthorpe wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:32:52 -0700 Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 29, 2004, 3:19:50 PM, Jonathan Nichols wrote: >> > Especially since they've gone *way* beyond blocking mail servers - they >> > will drop an entire /24 into their list because an IP in that block was >> > hosting *images* that were used in a spam. Not even intentionally. (Not >> > one single piece of mail came out of this block) That's just >> > ridiculous, IMHO. There's "collateral damage" and then there's just >> > plain silliness. >> >> Agreed. That's absurd. > I don't find SPEWS gradually expansive listings to be absurd; rather, I > find taking money from people to actively disrupt and destroy the very > network that provides your livelihood to be absurd. It's not the expanding I object to; it's listing innocent sites that spammers happen to link images from, then blocking those innocent sites. > PS: I really do appreciate all the work that Jeff & Co. have put into > SURBL and SA and I'd rather see people spend their time devising more > effective and innovative ways of stopping spam rather than complaining > about organizations with identical missions but different tactics. > Remember who the real enemy is. Thanks. I never said SPEWS is the enemy, but I do think some of their policies are relatively misguided. Basically they hurt their own usefulness by polluting their data with false positives. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
