If you have 3.4.1 and use sa-update then we add new tlds to a rule file that is then parsed.
This does not block those tlds. It let's the engine recognize the urls for further rules. If you have a tld that is missed and you are using 3.4.1 with sa-update, let us know. Regards, KAM On October 14, 2015 3:37:58 PM PDT, sha...@shanew.net wrote: >On Tue, 13 Oct 2015, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > >> At the end of the day, if you are having problems with new TLDs, ONE >solution >> is to use something that uses SA 3.4.1 and has sa-update configured >so you >> get updates with said new TLDs. > >I think maybe people are confused about how exactly this change helps >them get rid of all the spam that's coming from the "new" TLDs. > >So, in other words, having just updated to 3.4.1, how does one go from >having a list of all the new TLDs that can now be nicely maintained >with sa-update to getting rules which actually score against the vast >majority of the new TLDs (since most of them seem to be 99.99% spam)? > >I had created a local rule before moving to 3.4.1 that looks for new >TLDs in the Received, From and EnvelopeFrom headers, but it was >obvious that this wasn't going to scale well. Did the new system in >3.4.1 make this easier for me to do, or did it just make it possible >for new TLDs to be handed off to RBLs and the like (not that that's >not a major win)? > >Any elaboration (or a pointer to documentation (not the man page)) >would be greatly appreciated. > >-- >Public key #7BBC68D9 at | Shane Williams >http://pgp.mit.edu/ | System Admin - UT CompSci >=----------------------------------+------------------------------- >All syllogisms contain three lines | sha...@shanew.net >Therefore this is not a syllogism | www.ischool.utexas.edu/~shanew
