Re: Heads up: new open redirecters and new spammer trick for urls
jeffc at surbl.org
Mon May 17 17:20:19 CEST 2004
On Monday, May 17, 2004, 4:10:51 PM, John Fawcett wrote:
> From: "jdow"
>> From: "John Hardin" <johnh at aproposretail.com>
>> > On Sun, 2004-05-16 at 01:46, John Fawcett wrote:
>> > > In order to obtain the 302 code the browser sees
>> > > 2 things are necessary:
>> > > 1. Add a / before the * (That is the correct format for
>> > > yahoo redirection)
>> > > 2. Change the hTtP:\\ to hTtP:// (The mixed case is not a problem)
>> > I think fixing all backslashes to forward slashes in the URL before
>> > processing by SURBL would deal with both cases.
>> > Are (unescaped or unencoded) backslashes even *valid* in URLs?
>> Um, who cares? If the email programs parse them the way the spammers
>> want then we need to catch them parsed the way the spammers want. Of
>> course we COULD simply dump emails containing illegitimate back slashes
>> if nothing Microsoftish produces legitimate emails with backslashes.
>> I do not want to bet on that.
> In this case there is an additional consideration: SpamCopURI has logic to
> get the spammer domain out of a redirection url, by actually doing an http
> retrieval and reading the 302 response header.
> This retrieval fails if done on the url as written by the spammer.
> So the options are:
> - use unescaped \ as a spam indicator
> - mimic the broken browsers/email clients which are apparently rewriting
> malformed urls by mapping \ to /, thus allowing SpamCopURI to
> successfully retrieve the spammer domain for testing against surbl.
I would vote for the latter: map \ to /
(Although treating \ used as a separator as a --clue
indicator could also be useful, likewise using / for command
line flags. ;-)
mailto:jeffc at surbl.org
More information about the Discuss