On Friday, April 2, 2004, 2:11:39 AM, Jeff Chan wrote: > If it's the case that domains expire out of the SpamCop > URI data sooner than the particular spam domains remain > a problem, then I could definitely see a need for a longer > expiration. Being somewhat new to the game, I don't > have any data to support either argument.
OK I can see one flaw in my argument would be that if message body domain blocking were already popular and successful then *reporting* about spam URIs would taper off as fewer spams reached victims, even if the spam-referenced domains stayed up. In that case we could simply increase our expiration time to make the blocking persist long after the reports tapered off. (But there still should be some mechanism for expiring domains off the block list, whatever time period is used. Or there should be some other method of removing domains from the list.) Does anyone have any data about the persistence of spam URI domains? I'll even settle for any data about spam web server IP addresses. :-) Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
