RE: ADV: (was Re: [Asrg] Article - New anti-spam proposal in the House of Representative)

Scott Nelson <scott@spamwolf.com> Sat, 31 May 2003 17:36 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06246 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 31 May 2003 13:36:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4VHaTT28784 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 31 May 2003 13:36:29 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4VHaTB28781 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Sat, 31 May 2003 13:36:29 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06242; Sat, 31 May 2003 13:36:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MAFe-0000aJ-00; Sat, 31 May 2003 13:34:43 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MAFe-0000aG-00; Sat, 31 May 2003 13:34:42 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4VHT8B28609; Sat, 31 May 2003 13:29:08 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4VHSBB28567 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Sat, 31 May 2003 13:28:11 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06189 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 May 2003 13:28:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MA7d-0000ZG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 31 May 2003 13:26:25 -0400
Received: from adsl-66-120-64-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([66.120.64.133] helo=magic1.org) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19MA7c-0000ZD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 31 May 2003 13:26:25 -0400
Message-Id: <aT5vaIe86J8qbrGAZ02@x>
To: asrg@ietf.org
From: Scott Nelson <scott@spamwolf.com>
Subject: RE: ADV: (was Re: [Asrg] Article - New anti-spam proposal in the House of Representative)
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 10:28:14 -0700

>Is a 'whitelist' the converse of a 'blacklist'?
>

No.  At least, not the common usage of the two terms.
The difference lies in things that are not listed.
Blacklist implies that unlisted things are trusted.
Whitelist implies that unlisted things are not trusted.

IMO most of the current white/black lists should be tri-state.
For example; tested open relay, tested not open relay, untested.
(Well defined metric scores with the additional "unscored" value
 would be even better when possible.)


Scott Nelson <scott@spamwolf.com>

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg