On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 05:50 -0700, John Rudd wrote: > 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.
I'm not assuming anything John. Spam with no endgame is pointless spam. All spam has a point and purpose - or it would not exist. Most spammers staging or springboarding from such places turn their links around mighty fast - they know they wont be up for long, so whilst I sure there may be the odd 'floater' around, the enemy is formidable and ahead of the game. > 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) John I agree. I don't think there is any need to rush to do anything. It would make sense to phase out the rule in a period of time. A few extra lines of regex is not going to kill most machines - but long term there will probably be little benefit keeping it in.