On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 03:04 +0200, Wolfgang Zeikat wrote:
> On 2012-06-12 20:52, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
> > so its probably worth treating .gg
> > the same way as .cn and .ru, though for slightly different reasons.
>
> Unless you're in .cn, .ru or vicinity or have correspondence partners
> t
On 2012-06-12 20:52, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> so its probably worth treating .gg
> the same way as .cn and .ru, though for slightly different reasons.
Unless you're in .cn, .ru or vicinity or have correspondence partners
there, you may be right.
wolfgang
On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 18:47 +0100, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> 2012-06-12 16:36:44 +0100, Martin Gregorie:
> > Today I got a piece of spam carrying the URL chasovik.it.gg as its
> > payload. I was intrigued because I didn't think .gg was a valid tld and
> > looked it up with 'whois'. Sure enough, no
2012-06-12 16:36:44 +0100, Martin Gregorie:
> Today I got a piece of spam carrying the URL chasovik.it.gg as its
> payload. I was intrigued because I didn't think .gg was a valid tld and
> looked it up with 'whois'. Sure enough, no match was found. However,
> 'host' resolved it as 80.190.202.40 and
> From: Martin Gregorie [mailto:mar...@gregorie.org]
> Sent: 12 June 2012 16:37
> To: Spamassassin users list
> Subject: Is this a new typoe of URI obfuscation?
>
> Today I got a piece of spam carrying the URL chasovik.it.gg as its
> payload. I was intrigued because I didn't think .gg was a valid
On 6/12/12 11:36 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
Today I got a piece of spam carrying the URL chasovik.it.gg as its
payload. I was intrigued because I didn't think .gg was a valid tld and
looked it up with 'whois'.
that just means that the tld provider is violating RFC's, no that the
tld is invalid:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:36:44 +0100
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Today I got a piece of spam carrying the URL chasovik.it.gg as its
> payload. I was intrigued because I didn't think .gg was a valid tld
> and looked it up with 'whois'. Sure enough, no match was found.
.gg is a valid TLD: http://en.wik