On 22 Apr 2004 at 12:07, Gilbert, Joseph wrote: > From my understanding of sburl, they are fed by SpamCop. Thus, in order for > this to become workable, both SpamCop and sburl would have to have > mechanisms with the same results to unencode the URLs. Otherwise, there > would be no match. Now, this doesn't necessarily make the eventual solution > less feasible, it just means it now has the inertia of SpamCop to overcome > which may or may not be overly concerned with supporting sburl.
It's probably worth mentioning that for quite some time now, SpamCop reporting has included "spamvertized domains", and by default a copy of any spam report is sent to the administrator of domains linked within reported spam. As such, there's been quite a bit of de-obfuscation development done on the SpamCop side already; how much of that has made it into the SpamCopURI clients at this point is another question. ---- Nels Lindquist <*> Information Systems Manager Morningstar Air Express Inc. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Robotic Monkeys at ThinkGeek For a limited time only, get FREE Ground shipping on all orders of $35 or more. Hurry up and shop folks, this offer expires April 30th! http://www.thinkgeek.com/freeshipping/?cpg=12297 _______________________________________________ Razor-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/razor-users
