[SPAM-TAG] Re: [SURBL-Discuss] A list of spammers urls

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Fri Mar 11 08:48:11 CET 2005

On Thursday, March 10, 2005, 11:34:32 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
> However of those 94, 92 appear to not resolve any NS records which
> means they're either not registered, had their registrations
> expire, revoked, etc.  So they're not too useful for spammers.
> They could appear in spams, but any web sites referenced by them
> would not resolve.

I should add that if a domain doesn't resolve it can still
appear in spams, for example due to error or the spammer not
noticing that the domain had been cancelled, etc.  However
most spammers keep pretty careful track of which domains are
currently active.  It doesn't benefit them too much to advertise
a domain which doesn't work, so that tends not to happen too

It's also possible that these 92 did work before and perhaps
appeared in some older spams.  Spam is fairly dynamic so it
can be useful to work with fresher examples.  There appears
to be a recency effect where new domains appear in spams and
older ones are abandoned.

Jeff C.
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."

More information about the Discuss mailing list