From jeffc@surbl.org Wed Feb 23 07:35:02 2005
From: Jeff Chan <jeffc@surbl.org>
To: discuss@lists.surbl.org
Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Spammer Anti-SURBL tactic
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:39:10 -0800
Message-ID: <1314732360.20050222223910@surbl.org>
In-Reply-To: <421B3F5A.3040106@hyperlink-interactive.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3608149650284141364=="

--===============3608149650284141364==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tuesday, February 22, 2005, 6:19:06 AM, Robert Brooks wrote:
> David B Funk wrote:
>> I'm seeing a new spam varient that is clearly designed to get
>> past SURBL. It is an HTML message that contains many (50~100)
>> 'invisible' links; links that have no target text, just:
>> <A href="http://garbage.sitename.tld"></A>

>> Is it time to create rules to penalize large numbers of 'invisible'
>> links?

> it would also be good to discard pointless links before querying 
> surbl's, not sure how easy that is going to be to code though

Yes, there is a SpamAssassin bugzilla with a feature request to
ignore unclickable URIs:

  http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3976

Jeff C.
--
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."


--===============3608149650284141364==--