On 2018-02-21 16:31, Dianne Skoll wrote: > On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:29:00 -0500 > Rob McEwen <r...@invaluement.com> wrote: > >> Nevertheless, it is a shame to have to shift more of the burden onto >> spam filters to do more work (some of which requires MORE latency) - >> in order to partly mitigate Google's failure to prevent/correct the >> abuse. > > Yes, I agree. On the other hand, IMO a spam filter should block messages > that point to a taken-down shortened URL. Although such messages may > not be downright dangerous, they are still annoying and are still spam. > There's no way of avoiding the work. >
I think the point here might be that if Google acted promptly on abuse spammers would stop using shorteners. Karol -- Karol Augustin ka...@augustin.pl http://karolaugustin.pl/ +353 85 775 5312
