List Mail User wrote: > After all this arguing about whether a URI can be over-weighted (or > if a group of related lists are), on one of my local servers I tested the > short message (with the URL "intact") with arbitray innocuous headers: > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Test this: > > http://checpri.com-MUNG/
<snip> > > For a Kuvayev pill domain, the about 20 points for just mentioning > the domain seems about correct to me. The example of one friend complaining > to another doesn't hold up: If you were complaining about profanity, you > wouldn't reproduce it verbatim. People need to learn the same is true for > spam, and any of many simple methods to "MUNG" the URIs (if nothing else, so > your friend can't "accidentally" follow a link) will prevent many mistakes; > The problem and solution (i.e. "MUNG"'ing) is even more important when trojan > sites are being discussed. Yes, but Paul, quoting real spam domain's isn't the real problem here. The problem is the same thing happens to nonspam domains. In the past month it's happened to me TWICE that a nonspam domain got misreported to two different URIBLs. One of them, as mentioned before, is an update site for PAID users of a product. The mfr does not want those links sent out to anyone who hasn't paid for the product, because nobody but paid users can use them. However, some moron reported them to multiple URIBLs. I assume it's the same moron from demon.co.uk who reported the update notice to NANAS. http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin.net-abuse.sightings/msg/68ab6ba5d962b466?hl=en&; It's events like that which are the problem. I really don't care about real spam domains, but I do care that one mis-report tends to get rapidly replicated across multiple URIBLs. This is a BIG problem for the URIBLs because they are heavily monocultured.
