Alex wrote: > for both JMF_W > (HOSTKARMA_W) and URIBL_BLACK in the same message.
I'm not involved in the management of either of these, but I have some analysis which I think is accurate: (1) Marc Perkel's domain whitelist is auto-generated. This has many advantages... but one disadvantage is that some very dark-gray (or even blackhat) are going to get on that whitelist more because they were very shrewd and sneaky--but their messages were 99-100% UBE and NOT desired in user's inboxes (but the messages *looked* legit enough to keep the complaints down--a common situation) (2) At the same time, uribl is (2.a) very good at listing just those sort of sneaky ESPs who deserve to be blacklisted and are often missed by other lists ...AND... (2.b) uribl also sometimes goes a bit too far and lists some ESPs and hosters who have some legit uses, but send much spam I think 2.a is happening more often here than 2.b Regarding 2.b ...HEY... there are some really hard judgment calls here that could go either way. For example, I'm starting to notice many dark-gray ESPs who are sending 90% UBE... but the 10% legit mail they are sending are *pure* *advertisements*... NOT things like order confirmations, etc. There is then a strong argument that the collateral damage of blocking that 10% pure ads really isn't that harmful in return for the benefit of blocking the spams--since the end users are also going to like such a tradeoff. But this still isn't easy because sometimes that 10% involves large and famous companies (like AT&T recent use of [withheld]'s ESP services) And there are other examples which are a much harder to "call". But i think this well explains the overlap between URIBL-black and HostKarma's domain whitelist. -- Rob McEwen http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/ r...@invaluement.com +1 (478) 475-9032
