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

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Fri Mar 11 14:53:34 CET 2005


On Friday, March 11, 2005, 4:33:45 AM, Chris Edwards wrote:
> 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 I take it you are not listing non-existant domains ?

> ( makes sense )

If non-resolvable domains appeared in spams, we could list
them, but it tends not to happen.  Domains that don't resolve
can't drive traffic to a spam site so they tend not to be
useful for spammers.

> I wonder if there'd be much mileage in a SpamAssaassin feature to award
> points for any URLs that don't resolve ?

In principle it's something that could be done, but the timeouts
encountered trying to resolve non-existent domains could make it
impractical. 

Loading spams full of URIs probably dilutes the spammer's
message, especially if many of them were clickable or visible, so
they seem to not do it very often.  They want people to go to
their sites, not some other sites.  If the URIs are not clickable
then they aren't too useful for spammers, and a rule could be
made to look for messages containing many unclickable ones where
checking that would not require actual resolution.

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



More information about the Discuss mailing list