https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6335
--- Comment #65 from Jeff Chan <[email protected]> 2010-03-04 10:45:54 UTC --- > > > DBL lists $spammer.spaces.live.com, but they won't list spaces.live.com. > > > This is the same situation with a different sub-domain hoster. > > > > Let's modify this example a bit: spammer.live.com blacklisted, but > > live.com not. And our plugin strips out the first label, querying for > > live.com given an URL http://spammer.live.com/, and we miss a hit. > > Using vanilla RegistrarBoundaries -- yes. > > Using the third-party 90_2tld.cf -- no. The same with URIBL and SURBL. > > Given the previous mud-slinging (as evidenced in this bugzilla) between these > two URI DNSBLs, whether or not to list 2tld sub-domain hosters, involved > traffic, etc, I don't think they would be particularly happy about > RegistrarBoundaries stripped variants (including third-party settings), *plus* > the unstripped ones. > > The latter, in the absence of extensive, agreed-upon lists of 2tld and 3tld > sub-hoster domains, is exactly what DBL wants in a case like this, though. So > to not being harassed by other URI DNSBLs, we either can re-use those > boundaries and settings, or come up with code and a data-structure that keeps > only un-altered, un-stripped URIs -- with the path, etc again stripped though. SURBL and URIBL have agreed on most of the 2ld and 3lds in our tld lists now. co.cc is included in the 2ld list, which means foo.co.cc would be checked, but co.cc would not. In other words, the right thing is done. Thus the request to use the revised TLD data for RegistrarBoundaries: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6361 -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
