On Sunday, April 18, 2004, 6:58:14 PM, Simon Byrnand wrote:
At 13:49 19/04/2004, Jeff Chan wrote:
The traditional solution to ccTLDs (Country Code TLDs) seems to be to make a table of them, and make sure any extracted domains are +1 domain levels longer. So for company.co.nz, don't take co.nz as the base domain, but instead use company.co.nz since we know from the table that co.nz is a two level country code TLD. My slightly incomplete table of ccTLDs is at:
Hmm, well your list has .co.nz and .net.nz but not .school.nz (as an example)
OK I added school.nz. Anyeone know any others to add? Contact me off lists. :-) The list of ccTLDs came mostly from a registrar's:
http://www.bestregistrar.com/help/ccTLD.htm
What are the relative proportions of one level to two level country code TLD's ?
See below. In terms of spam domains ccTLDs are not a major problem. .com, .biz, .net have far more spam domains.
Are there any other one level hierachies used by countries, apart from the generic .com .org .net .biz etc ? Might be easier (and safer ?) to assume the other way around - assume its a two level country code unless listed. Then you're only having to list the top level (.com for example) rather than trying to keep track of things like .co.nz, .net.nz and so on, which are subject to change at the discretion of the local registrar...
Yes, that's part of the problem. Local TLD authorities seem to be able to add whatever TLDs they like under their own CC. Still I think ccTLDs should be regarded as minor. Certainly they are not a major destination for spam messages. Given that, handling the non-ccTLDs as a first priority is probably the most efficient.
Here are some relative rankings of the TLDs in domain reports I have from a couple weeks worth of SpamCop URI reports:
TLD Count of reports --- ---- com 1938 biz 424 net 322 info 90 org 79 us 39 ru 21 de 20 tv 13 nl 12 to 10 ph 8 cn 8 cc 7 br 7 tw 6 pl 6 ch 6 ws 5 it 5 fr 5 es 5 ro 4 jp 4 cl 4 nu 3 kr 3 cz 3 co 3 za 2 uk 2 se 2 pt 2
Jeff C.