Re: SPAMCOP NEVER SEEMS TO FIND THE SPAMVERTIZED URL'S IN DREW
nobody at devnull.spamcop.net
Fri Jul 16 15:23:51 EDT 2004
> In this case I would prefer Spamcop to do something about the no
> issue. I use a SPAM Filtering system that relies on the SURBL list
> Spamvertized URL's that is independently generated from Spam Cop
> reporting. Since I started using this filter, I started getting an
> increasing number of these no-links found items. For a URL to get
> SURLBL there has to be 10 recent abuse reports to Spam Cop and the
> why there are an increasing number of these no links found items is
> Drew Auman and more recently others are evading the system. If Spam
> fails to make changes you can expect to find an expontential growth
> type of SPAM.
> I understand why Spamcop are reluctant to respond to URL's that are
> HTML <A> tags, but it is possible to create a set of rules that can
> through the above deceptions. Drew Auman for example sends out stuff
> webcam or videocam. I have a number of filters in place that catch a
> his crap simply by recognising the form of the message.
I have suggested adding a 'grep mask' field to 'aid' SC in finding
URLs, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. This is *not* the same
as submitting a URL for SC to report; just to 'guide' SC to a URL that
it's ignoring because, say, too many URLs or it's not in an A tag.
I'd also like to see a process that allows a humanly-derived URL-chain
to report more than just the facade site, but the 'real' site behind
it (but I do realise that that is 'hard work').
Whilst it may be hard to find an algorithm for a machine to find what
I want to report, it is nowhere nearly as hard for a machine to
validate either a URL or URL-chain than has been manually derived - a
bit like verifying the reverse engineering of a one-way function.
Brewman.SpamCop at brycom.cX.nX which really ends with dot co dot nz
More information about the SpamCop-Help