Speaking of which, why are e-gold.com and home.ro on WS?
These look like obvious FPs to me. How did they get on?
Jeff C.
On Saturday, September 18, 2004, 1:02:53 AM, Jeff Chan wrote:
Speaking of which, why are e-gold.com and home.ro on WS?
These look like obvious FPs to me. How did they get on?
I'm whitelisting both of these. e-gold.com is a frequent phishing target and home.ro appears to be a mostly legitimate Romanian ISP.
I'd still like to hear why these were added to WS.
Jeff C.
Jeff Chan wrote:
I'd still like to hear why these were added to WS.
<crystal ball="ball"> Maybe for the same reasons why you found these domains on the list of PH candidates </crystal>
On an almost completely different issue, I stumbled over a list of TLDs "known to have no SLDs", the source URL is http://www.westpoint.ltd.uk/advisories/wp-04-0001.txt :
| 23 July 2004 Konqueror respond | Explain that they intend to fix the cross domain problem by | including a list of ccTLDs that, like .uk, require 3 dots. | The domain are: | name,ai,au,bd,bh,ck,eg,et,fk,il,in,kh,kr,mk,mt,na, | np,nz,pg,pk,qa,sa,sb,sg,sv,ua,ug,uk,uy,vn,za,zw
I was aware of au, nz, uk, and za using "commonwealth style", but the Konqueror list is much longer. Do you already have SLDs for all mentioned TLDs ? Bye, Frank
On Saturday, September 18, 2004, 11:17:48 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Jeff Chan wrote:
I'd still like to hear why these were added to WS.
<crystal ball="ball"> Maybe for the same reasons why you found these domains on the list of PH candidates </crystal>
Not sure I understand; can you explain further?
On an almost completely different issue, I stumbled over a list of TLDs "known to have no SLDs", the source URL is http://www.westpoint.ltd.uk/advisories/wp-04-0001.txt :
| 23 July 2004 Konqueror respond | Explain that they intend to fix the cross domain problem by | including a list of ccTLDs that, like .uk, require 3 dots. | The domain are: | name,ai,au,bd,bh,ck,eg,et,fk,il,in,kh,kr,mk,mt,na, | np,nz,pg,pk,qa,sa,sb,sg,sv,ua,ug,uk,uy,vn,za,zw
I was aware of au, nz, uk, and za using "commonwealth style", but the Konqueror list is much longer. Do you already have SLDs for all mentioned TLDs ? Bye, Frank
What we have are a list of ccTLDs that should start at the third level:
http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/two-level-tlds
If we could get some help with the ones we don't have enumerated into the SLDs, that would be great.
For example, we have com.au, org.au, etc. for .au but no second level domains in the list for for .ai, .bd, etc. Research help to find those could help.
OTOH, most of these ccTLDs are not used in spam. By far the biggest ccTLD spam domain is .us .
Jeff C.
Jeff Chan wrote:
Not sure I understand; can you explain further?
You posted a list of candidates for PH here (the stuff where you use more than the base domain), and on this list I've seen the mentioned e-gold.com and home.ro - not in the reduced form, it was something.e-gold.com resp. something.home.ro.
[Konqueror list]
| name,ai,au,bd,bh,ck,eg,et,fk,il,in,kh,kr,mk,mt,na, | np,nz,pg,pk,qa,sa,sb,sg,sv,ua,ug,uk,uy,vn,za,zw
What we have are a list of ccTLDs that should start at the third level:
Apparently you don't have ai, bd, bh, ck (co.ck can't be all), et, fk, mk, pg, pk, qa, sa, sb, vn, zw (only gov.zw).
The de section appears to be garbled (de.net after denic.de, museum.decoop.de in one line), and of course there are no "real" SLDs at all in TLD de, only some reserved SLDs. The reserved de-SLDs won't show up in spam, they don't exist. You can delete the complete de section, it makes no sense.
OTOH, most of these ccTLDs are not used in spam.
Yes. When I check my list of whois servers for TLDs again, I'll look at the 14 remaining dubious TLDs (ai etc.). Bye.