----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Chan"
On Tuesday, April 27, 2004, 1:47:41 PM, John Fawcett wrote:
Jeff Chan wrote on Mon Apr 26 03:58:58 CEST 2004 I think that some of the ccTLDs have a mixed assignment strategy. This means that they should sometimes be checked at the 2nd level sometime at the 3rd level. The current logic always checks at a single predefined level.
Not quite; it's table-driven at least on the data side.
If co.uk is in the ccTLD table then the third level is checked, i.e. spammerdomain.co.uk. Since secondlevelspamdomain.uk is *not* in the table it would get checked at the third level... *and caught*. :-)
As far as I could see the table in SpamCopUri contains only the .uk not co.uk. so this means that all .uk domains are being handled in the same way i.e. checked on the third level.
Eric or Justin, what is the Perl or SA module currently being used on the client side to handle ccTLDs again please? I should probably look into using it on the data side too.
The two example I saw were: .fr and .ca
Currently we check .ca at the third level, but it is possible to register a second level domain at .ca which we never catch so bigspammer.ca will get through.
The signalling is not at the TLD. It's at whatever level is in the table. We don't list .ca, but we do list ab.ca. That means foobar.ab.ca gets checked at the third level and somenewspamdomain.ca gets checked at the second level.
Likewise, I saw .ca in the table not ab.ca, so just as for the uk example everything is being checked at the third level by the client, and so spammer.ca. will be missed.
We check .fr at the second level however there are many "standard" second level domains (like .nom.fr) which means we probably want to be checking these ones at the third level. (Translation: any bigspammer.nom.fr domain is imune to the current strategy unless we want to upset everyone who has a nom.fr domain by listing that).
In this case there's a lack of data on the .fr ccTLDs. If somemone could research that and get them to me I'll add them to our table. (Ditto any other countries. :-) FWIW I just added nom.fr to:
nom.fr tm.fr gouv.fr asso.fr nom.fr avocat.fr notaire.fr barreau.fr mairie.fr
I didn't spot any of these being used on the client. So if I am reading things correctly we will never catch spammer.nom.fr etc.
Maybe if Eric is reading this, he can confirm whether this is the case.
John