On 2/21/2018 11:44 AM, Dianne Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 16:35:27 +0000
Karol Augustin <ka...@augustin.pl> wrote:
I think the point here might be that if Google acted promptly on abuse
spammers would stop using shorteners.
True, that might happen. OTOH, I see about as many spams with bit.ly
shorteners as goo.gl shorteners which is not what one might expect if
bit.ly were really that much more proactive than goo.gl.
I'm sure mileage may vary - but I'm seeing about 10X the abuse for
goo.gl right now as I see from bit.ly. Also, when I do random checks on
a handful of abused bitly shortners, a high percentage of them are
already terminated. But when I do random checks of abused goo.gl
redirectors, most of them are still operational. (I'm referring to
redirectors found in spams within the previous few days of when I
checked them, with at least hours having gone by since the message was
sent - I know that sounds anecdotal - but as I've been researching this
in the past weeks, that pattern keeps happening). One thing that could
potentially make those numbers different - is when you compare one
system that blocks MUCH spam at the perimeter based on the sending IP,
such as blocking all Zen-listed spams before DATA.... while another
system might capture ALL messages and process them all. The latter is
what my system does. That also might explain the difference in stats?
--
Rob McEwen
https://www.invaluement.com
