Hi, >> Yes, big help. That did it, using the default scores. This was >> written a number of years ago. Do you think it's still safe to use >> the default scores? > > NO! > > I put some of the (previously) better-performing chickenpox rules into > my sandbox a while ago to investigate this. It's still there:
Okay, great, thanks for the follow-up. I'll be sure to not use those and concentrate on the URL shortener improvements. > Somebody on this list wrote a parser to actually parse shorteners to > their obscured URLs. That would sure be great. I hadn't seen that, but would like to know more about it. Sounds like a better solution... > I've checked in a test at r935257 http://tinyurl.com/sa-r935257 (using > a shortened link seemed appropriate here). This adds two rules, > URL_SHORTENER (which detects a known URL shortening service) and > SHORT_URL (which notices a particularly short ccTLD link that does NOT > use a known shortening service). That's great. I still need to learn more about how masschecks works to understand the output from what you've posted, but will continue to follow it. Thanks, Alex
