On Friday, March 11, 2005, 4:33:45 AM, Chris Edwards wrote:
Jeff Chan wrote:
| However of those 94, 92 appear to not resolve any NS records which | means they're either not registered, had their registrations | expire, revoked, etc.
So I take it you are not listing non-existant domains ?
( makes sense )
If non-resolvable domains appeared in spams, we could list them, but it tends not to happen. Domains that don't resolve can't drive traffic to a spam site so they tend not to be useful for spammers.
I wonder if there'd be much mileage in a SpamAssaassin feature to award points for any URLs that don't resolve ?
In principle it's something that could be done, but the timeouts encountered trying to resolve non-existent domains could make it impractical.
Loading spams full of URIs probably dilutes the spammer's message, especially if many of them were clickable or visible, so they seem to not do it very often. They want people to go to their sites, not some other sites. If the URIs are not clickable then they aren't too useful for spammers, and a rule could be made to look for messages containing many unclickable ones where checking that would not require actual resolution.
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."