On Monday, March 21, 2005, 11:32:45 AM, Bobby Rose wrote: > Wouldn't this just be something that SURBL should take care of? If this > URL is the source of spam then it should be in SURBL regardless if it's > in the zdnet.com domain. Right!?
Which domain are you referring to? zdnet.com should not be in SURBLs because it has too many legitimate uses. If we listed zdnet.com that would surely result in false positives. On the other hand viags.com and simply-rx.net should be listed in SURBLs, *and they are*. What's needed is for applications like SpamAssassin to parse the redirection correctly and check both zdnet.com and viags.com. zdnet.com should not match SURBLs, but viags.com should. QED. Jeff C. __ > -----Original Message----- > From: Rosenbaum, Larry M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 10:35 AM > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: ZDNET redirecting to spammer websites? > We received a drug spam containing the following URL: > http://chkpt.zdnet.com/chkpt/supposedtoallow/fdl%2ev%69%61%67%73.co%6d/p > /b/kmioa > This URL will actually take you to fdl.viags.com (which then goes to > www.simply-rx.net). As far as I know, the SA SURBL check will check > zdnet.com, not the spammer domain viags.com. What is going on here, and > what should we do about it? > Larry Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
