On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Kelson wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Matt wrote:
> >
> >> Why can't Spamassassin do like a MD5 hash of any URL's in a
> >> message and check them against a database? I just think it would
> >> help catch things like: geocities.com/spamer123/ or
> >> spamer123.tripod.com and
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Matt wrote:
Why can't Spamassassin do like a MD5 hash of any URL's in a
message and check them against a database? I just think it would
help catch things like: geocities.com/spamer123/ or
spamer123.tripod.com and etc.
Too easy to defeat using a URI
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Matt wrote:
> Why can't Spamassassin do like a MD5 hash of any URL's in a
> message and check them against a database? I just think it would
> help catch things like: geocities.com/spamer123/ or
> spamer123.tripod.com and etc.
Too easy to defeat using a URI with random parame
Funny you should mention that. I recently wrote a proof of concept plugin
that does exactly what you're talking about. The point was to check URLs
against google's safebrowsing list, which was just announced.
Unfortunately, the results were rather poor. The only hits that I got were
on message
Matt wrote:
Why can't Spamassassin do like a MD5 hash of any URL's in a message
and check them against a database?
Because there isn't such a database?
Daryl
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 10:11 -0500, Matt wrote:
> Why can't Spamassassin do like a MD5 hash of any URL's in a message
> and check them against a database?
Well, not MD5, but Whiplash type 8 signatures in Razor-2 are pretty
similar.
> I just think it would help catch
> things like: geocities.com/
Why can't Spamassassin do like a MD5 hash of any URL's in a message
and check them against a database? I just think it would help catch
things like: geocities.com/spamer123/ or spamer123.tripod.com and etc.
It would also work for Tinyurl links and the like.
Matt
