But in my test messages the email address wasn't in the form of a URI. It was just the email address. I even used pine for a test to make sure it was a gui client doing some reformatting business.
Do we know if it's possible to know if the results from SBL are for the domain of the URI being queried or if their results are due to some association with the domain being queried. If so then we could ignore any results other than for the domain being queried or weigh the results differently so long as they aren't accumulative points for each occurrence. Otherwise, the points would add up the more that person's email address appears in the email. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 5:26 PM To: Daryl C. W. O'Shea Cc: List Mail User; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: URI Tests and Japanese Chars (solved) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes: > List Mail User wrote: > > Jeff, > > > > RFC 1630 make pretty clear that a email address in either a "mailto:"; > > or "cid:"; clause *is* a URI. It does not address whether a bare > > email address would count (it seems that it doesn't fit the RFC > > definition, but does fit some other I found by Goggle). > > > > I could be convinced either way from a bare address (as it stand > > now, maybe someone else has something to add). But a "mailto:"; "mail:" or "cid:"; > > clause should (in my opinion) be looked up by the URI rules - they > > are URI, not URL rules (though URLs are clearly the most common from of URIs). > > > > I was surprised to see that from the RFC, even "Msg-Id:" clauses > > are URIs. > > > > Paul Shupak > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I'd agree with Paul, what's the difference between doing the lookup of > the domain listed in a mailto: link and a http: link -- both of which > are often found in someone's signature? > > Eliminating the mailto: domain lookup could lead to spam such as > "email us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for all the junk you don't really want". However, it's an impedance mismatch between what's going into the backends (the SBL and SURBL uribls) and what we're matching on the other end. At least for SBL, it's definitely problematic, since a SBL escalation (of mail relays) will blocklist mail that *mentions* that domain! - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFCOgPeMJF5cimLx9ARAsyZAJ9ZiuOa2Lo6iK8Xflh6G+FdddUUcACeIbrA YxiICu7MFD6uG8eKB9YK5tw= =BHlZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
