https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=8075

            Bug ID: 8075
           Summary: Request for .site, .online, and .fun to be dropped
                    from SpamAssassin's suspicious TLD list
           Product: Spamassassin
           Version: unspecified
          Hardware: All
                OS: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Rules
          Assignee: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
          Reporter: nehav@radix.email
  Target Milestone: Undefined

Created attachment 5857
  --> https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=5857&action=edit
Daily abuse feed for the concerned tlds from Spamhaus and Surbl

Issue: .online, .site, and .fun are listed in SpamAssassin's suspicious TLD
list. This leads to important business emails being marked as spam and being
delivered to customers. 

Details: I request that .online, .site, and .fun be dropped from SpamAssassin's
suspicious/untrustworthy TLD list. The abuse rates on these three TLDs have
been significantly low in the past couple of months. (Please see the attached
Spamhaus statistics. These are direct feeds we receive from Spamhaus every day.
It is evident from the data that all three TLDs have shown considerable and
continuous improvement in their rankings and abuse rate). However, for the last
couple of years, several clients using these TLDs have complained that their
emails are not getting delivered to their customers. One of the potential
reasons behind this could be that many of these emails are being marked as spam
by Apache SpamAssassin, leading to some profound business loss.

Can SpamAssassin please set up a test rule for .site, .online and .fun
individually to check their S/O (spam hits/overall hits)? Also, it would be
great if the TLDs were dropped from the list should the S/O for each TLD turns
out to be lower than the overall S/O of the aggregate rule.

A similar bug had been raised for .space TLD in Bug 7953, where after the test,
it was found that S/O for .space was lower, and thus, the TLD was eventually
dropped from the suspicious TLD list. Please see bug 7953, comment 8. I would
be happy to provide other supporting data/information to help with the tests.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

Reply via email to