On Monday, April 12, 2004, 6:00:40 PM, Justin Mason wrote: > Jeff Chan writes: >> On Monday, April 12, 2004, 4:58:11 PM, Burnie Burnie wrote:
>> > Currently I get quite a few URIs which contains redirectors. >> > I.e. http://drs.yahoo.com/incomplete/*http://spammer/address >> > http://g.msn.com/0US!s5.31472_315529/HP.1001?http://spammer/address >> >> > AFAIK URIDNSBL.pm (and SpamCopURI) will not trigger on the >> > spammers URI. - Even though the RBLs (mostly) will contain the >> > URI/IP of http://spammer/address. >> >> > Of course the above would be easy to parse to get the actual URIs, >> > but what about other redirectors where the actual URI must be >> > looked up at the redirector itself? (Those who shortens the URI) >> >> > Should we run lookups to known redirectors to get the actual URI? >> > And how many times should we lookup, if the redirect is to >> > (another) redirector? >> >> Definitely a good question. Ideally mail handlers like SA that >> want to parse message body URIs should somehow resolve the >> redirections. I just wrote a little about the topic on sa-users >> and my site: >> >> http://www.surbl.org/ > I think I agree. We already translate %-escapes and return both the > encoded and unencoded URIs -- we should probably also strip off known > redirectors, as their use will become more popular. > Could you open a bug? > - --j. Done: http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3261 This is my first bugzilla. Feedback appreciated. :-) Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
