On 10/7/2013 7:42 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: > This is harming more then it does good. But its your list so your > rules ;) I would not want to use it to filter my mails with it but hey
Since this is in its early development, it is probably too early to judge it too much. But from what I've read in this discussion, it is "light years" away from the current major URI/domain blacklists out there (SURBL, URIBL, ivmURI, DBL)... BUT... Kevin is brilliant so who knows what it might eventually become? ALSO...There is an argument that a more-aggressive-than-normal AND low-scoring URI list may be helpful? In that sense, URIBL.com has traditionally been considered slightly more aggressive than the other lists mentioned above... SLIGHTLY! Maybe something much MORE aggressive, intended for very low scoring... would be useful? (this would be situations where bayes or checksum content filters add points to the spam score combined with such an aggressive URI list putting the message "over the top"... but then skipping blocking a legit message with this URI because it didn't have the other content points added and thus didn't score high enough--at least that is the idea) But I can't help but think that SOME reading this thread haven't even tried/implemented even all the zero-cost options for the (already matured) lists I mentioned (where applicable)? -- Rob McEwen http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/ r...@invaluement.com +1 (478) 475-9032
