more on VeriSign to revive redirect service

Thu Oct 16 17:46:44 UTC 2003

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:16:53 CDT, Andrew D Kirch <trelane at trelane.net>  said:
> 
>>I would certainly say there's an elitism, or perhaps a higher level of
>>credibility given to a .com or .net site, due to the fact that they've probably
>>existed for quite a bit longer than a .biz or .info.

> Most of my spam points back to .com addresses.  Not much credibility generated
> there...

> There's sufficient churn on the bottom-feeding .com's that it's not a reliable
> indicator.  Now you want *stability*, look for a site that's got a .arpa other than
> in-addr.arpa :)

On the other hand, in our spam filters, we have a content filter block 
on the string ".biz" followed by a slash (I'm spelling it out because I 
don't think I've whitelisted this list).  It works surprisingly well. 
Out of several tens of thousands of blocks per week on that rule, we 
get, perhaps, 3 FP reports.  Which is an acceptable level of FPs given 
the overall effectiveness. Most of them are resolved by advising the 
sender to not end http://foo.bar.biz site-level URLs with a slash.