RFC: Removing example.com as a testpoint (Was: Re: [SURBL-Discuss]
Re: No install Problems with 0.10)
jeffc at surbl.org
Wed Apr 14 15:30:40 CEST 2004
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/ ?
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
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:
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.
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.
More information about the Discuss