On Wednesday, March 9, 2005, 6:20:49 PM, Robert Menschel wrote:
> Wednesday, March 9, 2005, 1:00:33 AM, Jeff Chan wrote:

>>> Goal: There are public newsletters, services, etc., which a) do not
>>> spam, and b) can easily be mistaken as spam by SpamAssassin for a
>>> variety of reasons (overly aggressive custom rules, wrongly taught
>>> Bayes system, paid advertising listing SURBL URIs, etc). Though
>>> anti-spam devotees see these as opportunities for cleaning up our
>>> system, for the purposes of email reliability we want these emails to
>>> go through unhindered. 

JC>> This is something that could potentially be useful to SURBLs as a
JC>> whitelist source (used for exclusion from SURBLs), so I'm in
JC>> favor of it.  Daryl's ideas of a web form feeding a database
JC>> and a separately named rule to use it within SA seem like good
JC>> suggestions.

> In that a whitelisted "from" domain can be assumed to reference its
> own domain in URIs within its emails, I agree.  A SURBL whitelist
> probably should contain these primary domain names, to ensure that
> spammers don't pollute SURBL by using/abusing these domains.

Yes, that's one of the current functions of the SURBL whitelist:
to prevent Joe Jobs of bad guys trying to get legitimate domains
listed in SURBLs by mentioning them in spams.

> Theo's comment about being able to skip SURBL checks is a good idea
> also.

In case it's not clear, that's already being done in URIDNSBL.pm.

[...]
JC>> As you outline it above it seems like it would be a global
JC>> publishing of local whitelists where there was strong consensus
JC>> about what should be whitelisted.  That could be a subset of
JC>> the local whitelist_froms of all SpamAssassin installations.
JC>> It could also grow into something larger, and that's not
JC>> necessarily a bad thing.  Collecting up SA local whitelist_froms
JC>> is a reasonable place to start.

> Problem with the whitelist_from's is that they don't have the rcvd
> information needed to prevent abuse. Change that to a collection of
> local whitelist_from_rcvd's, and I would agree with you completely.

Yes, whitelist_from_rcvd is what I meant, not whitelist_from.
:-)

Jeff C.
-- 
Jeff Chan
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.surbl.org/

Reply via email to