On Wednesday, April 14, 2004, 1:27:01 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
L. Tran writes:
Try putting http://example-butnotthispart.com in your test message. It works for me.
Ah -- I've just realised, that will be a pretty big problem ;)
Jeff, can we change that to another domain? example.com is widely used for the purpose it's intended for, an "example domain" to use in example URLs, example email addrs, example whatever. Adding it to SURBL as the test domain means that it now gets another, unpleasant meaning -- a good way to get your mail into the spam folder. I don't think that'll be a good side-effect. :(
Something more like the GTUBE ( http://SpamAssassin.org/gtube/ ) -- ie a domain that doesn't already exist and is not going to crop up for other reasons. Something like http://surbl-org-permanent-test-point.com/ ?
Hi Justin, Good point. We added example.com by request, and we've just had another request for example.tld. Both are in the rfc-ignorant.org RBLs:
Name: example.com.abuse.rfc-ignorant.org Address: 127.0.0.4
Name: example.tld.abuse.rfc-ignorant.org Address: 127.0.0.4
HOWEVER, *other RBLs* are not used to block on message bodies and example.com is unlikely to be used as a sender domain. But it could appear in a message body URI as someone's example.
It's part of the reason we wanted to be conservative and use only non-existent domains or ones we control as test points:
Name: test.sc.surbl.org.sc.surbl.org Address: 127.0.0.2
Name: test.surbl.org.sc.surbl.org Address: 127.0.0.2
Our currently having 127.0.0.2 in the lists is probably safe since unlike 127.0.0.1, .2 should probably never occur in emails unless someone had an unusual loopback address URI to share.
Name: 2.0.0.127.sc.surbl.org Address: 127.0.0.2
Does anyone have any comments about whether we should remove example.com from the test set? Justin makes a valid point that it could block messages with example URIs. I'm leaning towards taking it out.
If we do, anyone using example.com in their test URIs should change to test.surbl.org or test.(zone).surbl.org.
Comments please,
Jeff C.