[SURBL-Discuss] RFC: SURBL software implemetation guidelines
jeffc at surbl.org
Sun Apr 18 21:02:04 CEST 2004
On Sunday, April 18, 2004, 6:58:14 PM, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> At 13:49 19/04/2004, Jeff Chan wrote:
>>The traditional solution to ccTLDs (Country Code TLDs) seems to
>>be to make a table of them, and make sure any extracted domains
>>are +1 domain levels longer. So for company.co.nz, don't take
>>co.nz as the base domain, but instead use company.co.nz since we
>>know from the table that co.nz is a two level country code TLD.
>>My slightly incomplete table of ccTLDs is at:
> Hmm, well your list has .co.nz and .net.nz but not .school.nz (as an example)
OK I added school.nz. Anyeone know any others to add? Contact
me off lists. :-) The list of ccTLDs came mostly from a registrar's:
> What are the relative proportions of one level to two level country code
> TLD's ?
See below. In terms of spam domains ccTLDs are not a major
problem. .com, .biz, .net have far more spam domains.
> Are there any other one level hierachies used by countries, apart from the
> generic .com .org .net .biz etc ? Might be easier (and safer ?) to assume
> the other way around - assume its a two level country code unless listed.
> Then you're only having to list the top level (.com for example) rather
> than trying to keep track of things like .co.nz, .net.nz and so on, which
> are subject to change at the discretion of the local registrar...
Yes, that's part of the problem. Local TLD authorities seem to
be able to add whatever TLDs they like under their own CC. Still
I think ccTLDs should be regarded as minor. Certainly they are not
a major destination for spam messages. Given that, handling the
non-ccTLDs as a first priority is probably the most efficient.
Here are some relative rankings of the TLDs in domain reports I
have from a couple weeks worth of SpamCop URI reports:
TLD Count of reports
More information about the Discuss