On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 22:15 -0400, Daniel Staal wrote:
> --As of September 9, 2014 3:45:33 AM +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann is alleged
> to have said:
>
> > This incidence is part of the initial round of IANA accepting generic
> > TLDs. There's hundreds in this wave, and some are abused early. This is
> > moonshine registration, nothing like new TLDs being accepted in the
> > coming years.
> >
> > Or is it? Will new generic TLDs in the future be abused like that, too?
> > How frequently will that happen? Is it worth being able to react to it
> > quickly? How long will URIBLs take to list them? How long will it take
> > for the average MUA to even linki-fy them?
> >
> > Opinions? Discussion in here, or should I move this to dev?
>
> --As for the rest, it is mine.
>
> New TLDs will always be abused...
And old ones. "TK, re-naming the web." Yes, sometimes it is valid to add
a point or two for the mere occurence of a TLD in a URI.
For how long? Whoever applied for new generic $tld put about 180 grand
up the shelve. How much is it worth them to prevent spammers from
tasting domains and actually turn their investment into serious
customers paying bucks?
> Anyway, personal opinion: Spamassassin is currently structured to have code
> and rules as separate things. Putting this in the code blurs that - it's a
> rule. Unless there is a major performance penalty, I would move it to be
> with the rest of the rules. It should make maintenance easier and clearer.
It is and would not be "a rule" as you stated, but configuration.
Apart from that nitpick, I understand you would be in favor of a Valid
TLD option, rather than hard-coded. Noted.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
