On Thursday, November 11, 2004, 7:49:51 PM, David Hooton wrote: > On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 23:43:18 -0800, Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Does anyone have any more testing of the fraud.rhs.mailpolice.com >> data to share?
> It looks good to me so far. >> Shall we add it to ph.surbl.org? > I have no problem with it, it's yet another view of the internet which > I believe is important. > As a side note to everyone, please keep submitting your phish emails > to postmaster @ corp.mailsecurity.net.au without your submissions we > don't have new data :) Thanks for your feedback David. Based on your feedback and others, I went ahead and merged the fraud.rhs.mailpolice.com data in with your mailsecurity.net.au phishing list into ph.surbl.org. Overlap between these two lists was only 36 records, and combining the lists has approximately doubled the size of the ph.surbl.org to about 1000 records. One thing you may want to look at is expiring the data, especially IP addresses. Not sure what algorithm to use, though age may be a possibility, or perhaps the lack of recent reports for a given record. Overlap between fraud.rhs.mailpolice.com and other existing SURBLs, including ph.surbl.org is 89 records. I'll go ahead and announce and document this change. Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
