[SURBL-Discuss] ccTLDs and multiple queries

Jose-Marcio.Martins at ensmp.fr jose-marcio.martins at ensmp.fr
Thu Apr 22 00:54:01 CEST 2004


Jeff Chan wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 21, 2004, 7:37:47 AM, Eric Kolve wrote:
>  
>
>>Initially, when I released spamcopuri I decided to pretty much ignore
>>whether the TLD was a country code or not.  This results in about
>>twice as many queries as necessary, but guaranteed you would get
>>hits if the domain was listed.  
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>Now that people are pointing this to other RBL's beside just surbl, 
>>should we continue to do second and third level queries? Or just 
>>the query that we assume to be necessary?  My concern is that not 
>>all RBLs will process the domains according to a list such as
>>http://www.bestregistrar.com/help/ccTLD.htm.  I suppose the worst
>>case scenario is we end up getting a miss when we should be getting
>>a hit because one side presumes that say TLD .za has a subdomain 'foo',
>>when the server doesn't.  The server side would expect a second level, while
>>the client would do a third level query (this is why I wanted the wildcard
>>records).  I guess this really isn't that great a consequence considering
>>the savings and the fact that this shouldn't occur very often.
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>I will go ahead and make this change if everyone is comfortable with the
>>known risk.
>>    
>>
>
>Not sure I'm understanding the proposal.  Remember that the goal
>should be for the clients to check the registrar-type base domain
>against the RBL.  If foo.co.uk is the registered domain then
>that's what the client should extract and it's what the RBL
>should have if there's to be a match.
>

Yeah. But you did the assumption that all the rules are defined at some 
pages told before (bestregistrar, ...).

But there are exceptions. For example, brazilian domains. Most brazilian 
domains have three components, but not all. E.g. "cta.br" and "ita.br". 
These aren't spammers, but an engineering school and a research center 
from Brazilian Air Force.

Your assumptions are based on the fact that you know all the rules. But 
this isn't true. On the other side, I don't know how much significants 
are all the exceptions.

Best,

Jose-Marcio

>
>Please clue me in.  ;-)
>
>Jeff C.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at lists.surbl.org
>http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------
 Jose Marcio MARTINS DA CRUZ           Tel. :(33) 01.40.51.93.41
 Ecole des Mines de Paris              http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr
 60, bd Saint Michel                http://www.ensmp.fr/~martins
 75272 - PARIS CEDEX 06      mailto:Jose-Marcio.Martins at ensmp.fr





More information about the Discuss mailing list