On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 05:42, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
<rich...@buzzhost.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 05:08 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
>> On 27-Oct-2009, at 04:53, Mike Cardwell wrote:
>> > Why have any geocities specific rules any more if geocities doesn't
>> > exist? It's not as if spammers can host their websites on geocities
>> > anymore so there's no reason why a spammer would include a geocities
>> > url in their spam. May as well just delete the rules...
>>
>>
>> If the links are still appearing in SPAM then no, don't delete the
>> rules, just bump up the scores.
>>
>
> Would this not be almost entirely pointless? With spam the motto is
> 'follow the money'. if the link does not work, there is no path to the
> money to follow. Other than prospecting for valid recipients {which
> could be done just as easily without the link} there is no benefit for a
> spammer to include a link of this nature.

You're assuming that spammers will perfectly update all existing spam.
 There might be crud floating around out there for a while to come.
And, any messages that contain that crud are just as likely to be spam
as they were before.

My suggestion: proceed as normal.  Adjust the scores for geocities
spam as the analysis tools on currnet/live* spam suggest, until such
time as there are no more spam messages showing up that are hitting
the geocities rules ... for at least 1-3 months.  Once they stop
showing up in the wild for a substantial period of time (ie. my 1-3
months suggestion), THEN remove them from the rules.  Not before.

(*  not the corpus of past/historical/stale spam)

Reply via email to