Tim wrote: > Another mitigating factor is the domain name that you post from. > Certain top-level-domains get red flagged as being more likely to be > spam, simply by the name, regardless of content. e.g. Spamassassin, > IGNORANTLY, does that with .biz and .info TLDs. I say that with such > venom because in the years that I've been on the internet, and in the > thousands of spam that I've received, I've noticed about seven spams > that came with .biz TLDs in them. Hmm. Having a maildir folder with over 11000 spams in it, I can test this fairly easily. $ ls | xargs egrep -l 'http://[A-Z@xxxxxxxx]*\.biz[^[email protected]]' | wc -l 252 $ ls | xargs egrep -l 'http://[A-Z@xxxxxxxx]*\.info[^[email protected]]' | wc -l 761 In other words, a bit over 2% of my spam includes a (relatively well-formed) .biz URL, and well over 6% of it includes an .info URL. That, of course, is on the set of spam the spammers were kind enough to send me. I understand that the reason SpamAssassin *does* flag up those e-mails with a .biz or .info TLD is simply that across their set of spam and non-spam, it does turn into a useful indicator. James. -- E-mail: james@ | "As for Nitel, the state telephone monopoly, the less aprilcottage.co.uk | said the better, which might well be the company's | motto." | -- The Economist, about Nigeria
