jrudd at ucsc
Nov 5, 2009, 8:48 AM
Post #6 of 12
(337 views)
Permalink
|
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 08:21, Marc Perkel <marc[at]perkel.com> wrote:
> Obviously you wouldn't block on this by itself. It is a piece of information
> that combined with other information might be useful in detecting spam.
and:
> It's really not a black list. It's a lookup list. I'm just using RBLDNSD to provide the list.
Neither of which changes the point of what I'm saying.
The point isn't: "should you block or not". I never said anything
about that, one way nor the other. As you have just stated,
blacklists get used for things other than just blocking. My point has
nothing to do with blocking.
The point is: the URL shortening service isn't the interesting part of
the equation. The expanded URL is. So, telling people "this is a URL
shortening/compacting service" is really of minimal value, IMO.
Unless you then use that as a decision to try to expand the URL or not
("if it's in Marc's RBL, then try to expand it; if not, then don't").
And, again, that latter part is the main value: expanding the URL.
> John Rudd wrote:
>
> There's lots of valid uses of those services, to just having a
> blacklist for the providers doesn't seem, to me, to be useful. I
> think what would be more useful is a way for SA to expand the
> short/tiny/etc. URLs in a way that lets SA check against the expanded
> URL.
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 07:01, Marc Perkel <marc[at]perkel.com> wrote:
>
>
> I don't know if it will be useful but I made a short URL provider list that
> is DNS readable.
>
> I got the list here:
>
> http://longurl.org/services
>
> It's a host name RBL and you can read it as follows:
>
> dig tinyurl.com.shorturl.junkemailfilter.com
>
> Let me know if you find a use for it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
