FYI I received another mail from the same list and it doesn't look
like the
problem has been solved (updated KAM to check)
Different problem but a good example. Thanks. KAM Ruleset is updated
to handle it and appreciate you posting about it.
these two are somehow redundant.
uri
On 8/20/2021 6:23 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
it seems that some TLD rules catch strings that are not domains:
* 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs
* [URI: ups.mfr.date (date)]
* 5.0 KAM_SOMETLD_ARE_BAD_TLD .stream, .trade, .pw, .top, .press,
* .guru, .ca
On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:16:14 -0700
Kenneth Porter wrote:
> On 8/20/2021 1:53 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> > I just had it falsely hit, in that it triggered on mail that was
> > ham. There was a .club URL, but it was to a club website mentioned
> > in mail that I actually agreed to get and that was on
On 8/20/2021 1:53 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
I just had it falsely hit, in that it triggered on mail that was ham.
There was a .club URL, but it was to a club website mentioned in mail
that I actually agreed to get and that was on topic.
So I would suggest that rules that do not show actual evidence
Kenneth Porter writes:
>> * 5.0 KAM_SOMETLD_ARE_BAD_TLD .stream, .trade, .pw, .top, .press,
>> * .guru, .casa, .online, .cam, .shop, .club & .date TLD
>> Abuse
>
> The KAM rule was just recently fixed. If you have an example that's
> still tripping it, post it to a pastebin and sh
On 8/20/2021 6:23 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
it seems that some TLD rules catch strings that are not domains:
* 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs
* [URI: ups.mfr.date (date)]
* 5.0 KAM_SOMETLD_ARE_BAD_TLD .stream, .trade, .pw, .top, .press,
* .guru, .c
Hello,
it seems that some TLD rules catch strings that are not domains:
* 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs
* [URI: ups.mfr.date (date)]
* 5.0 KAM_SOMETLD_ARE_BAD_TLD .stream, .trade, .pw, .top, .press,
* .guru, .casa, .online, .cam, .shop, .cl
