[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:16:53 CDT, Andrew D Kirch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
I would certainly say there's an elitism, or perhaps a higher level of credibility given to a .com or .net site, due to the fact that they've probably existed for quite a bit longer than a .biz or .info.
Most of my spam points back to .com addresses. Not much credibility generated there...
There's sufficient churn on the bottom-feeding .com's that it's not a reliable indicator. Now you want *stability*, look for a site that's got a .arpa other than in-addr.arpa :)
On the other hand, in our spam filters, we have a content filter block on the string ".biz" followed by a slash (I'm spelling it out because I don't think I've whitelisted this list). It works surprisingly well. Out of several tens of thousands of blocks per week on that rule, we get, perhaps, 3 FP reports. Which is an acceptable level of FPs given the overall effectiveness. Most of them are resolved by advising the sender to not end http://foo.bar.biz site-level URLs with a slash.
