Re: The "goo.gl" shortner is OUT OF CONTROL (+ invaluement's response)

2018-03-10 Thread Rob McEwen
On 3/10/2018 11:43 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 3/10/2018 11:22 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: this is apparently not the case of one url redirector (shortener) points to another shortener. I really hope that the DecodeShortURLs only checks fopr redirection at those known redirect

Re: The "goo.gl" shortner is OUT OF CONTROL (+ invaluement's response)

2018-03-10 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 3/10/2018 11:22 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: this is apparently not the case of one url redirector (shortener) points to another shortener. I really hope that the DecodeShortURLs only checks fopr redirection at those known redirectors (shorteners), not each http->https shortener and o

Re: The "goo.gl" shortner is OUT OF CONTROL (+ invaluement's response)

2018-03-10 Thread Rob McEwen
On 3/10/2018 11:22 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: this is apparently not the case of one url redirector (shortener) points to another shortener. I really hope that the DecodeShortURLs only checks fopr redirection at those known redirectors (shorteners), not each http->https shortener and o

Re: The "goo.gl" shortner is OUT OF CONTROL (+ invaluement's response)

2018-03-10 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 3/10/2018 3:20 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: do you have an example of any chained redirection not suspicious? On 10.03.18 11:04, Rob McEwen wrote: I haven't examined the code for that plugin very much (yet!) but one type of very common redirect that is very innocent... is the fact

Re: The "goo.gl" shortner is OUT OF CONTROL (+ invaluement's response)

2018-03-10 Thread Rob McEwen
On 3/10/2018 3:20 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: do you have an example of any chained redirection not suspicious? I haven't examined the code for that plugin very much (yet!) but one type of very common redirect that is very innocent... is the fact that a MASSIVE percentage of web si

Re: razor?

2018-03-10 Thread RW
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 09:39:20 +0100 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >>>For example those scores were for a totally legit email that had > >>>some screenshots embedded in the email... > > some screenshots? afaik razor only work on text parts, so short mail > is quite possible to be detected (as

Re: Spammers, IPv6 addresses, and dnsbls

2018-03-10 Thread Leandro
> > On 02.03.18 10:12, Leandro wrote: > >> If the spammer uses the same domain at rDNS, when rotating IPs, our system >> will list each new IP at first DNSBL query. >> > > do you verify synthetic rDNS too? when do you blacklist whole /64 ? > > I mean: there's 2^64 (18446744073709551616) IPv6 addres

Re: razor?

2018-03-10 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 11:09:40 -0300 Robert Boyl wrote: Just wondering, whats your thoughts on Razor? razor is great at spam detection. It says on their site " Detection is done with statistical and randomized signatures that efficiently spot mutating spam content. " For example those scores we

Re: The "goo.gl" shortner is OUT OF CONTROL (+ invaluement's response)

2018-03-10 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 07.03.18 10:59, sha...@shanew.net wrote: Just FYI, it does add 3.0 points as soon as it sees any chaining at all. The other 5.0 points get added at 10 redirections. That said, I think you're guess is right that redirections start to look really suspicious after just 3 or 4. do you have an

Re: Spammers, IPv6 addresses, and dnsbls

2018-03-10 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 02.03.18 09:58, Leandro wrote: Hi Danilele! Our DNSBL works with individual /128 IPv6 addresses: http://spfbl.net/en/dnsbl/ Even if the provider is offering less then /64 to customers, our DNSBL can list IPv6 of each one. 2018-03-02 10:08 GMT-03:00 Matus UHLAR - fantomas : how/who do yo