On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote: > I like the idea of an RBL gives ratings instead of binary values. > That's why I thought of it being a "confidence percentage" instead > of just a "yes, we have them listed in the zone". How to build > that confidence rating is another matter entirely.
There's another option: develop a set of registrar behavior criteria (e.g. "does not have a strong anti-spam AUP", "does not respond to complaints", "does not enforce AUP", etc.) and assign bits to those criteria. There wouldn't be a confidence score per se, but a bitmapped report of why they are considered spam-friendly. If you don't want to judge on a particular criteria, mask it out of your subtest. It's also much less subjective. -- John Hardin KA7OHZ ICQ#15735746 http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED] key: 0xB8732E79 - 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad. -- James Madison, 1799 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
