Re: [Asrg] whitelisting links (was Re: misconception in SPF)

Paul Smith <paul@pscs.co.uk> Mon, 10 December 2012 20:30 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=0691FCDE2A=paul@pscs.co.uk>
X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A658621F864D for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:30:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FY+bbC1VP0jP for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:30:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.pscs.co.uk (mail.pscs.co.uk [188.65.177.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B263F21F8646 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:30:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lmail.pscs.co.uk ([82.68.5.206]) by mail.pscs.co.uk ([188.65.177.237] running VPOP3) with ESMTP for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:42:56 -0000
Received: from [192.168.57.155] ([217.155.61.157]) by lmail.pscs.co.uk ([192.168.66.70] running VPOP3) with ESMTP for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:24:29 -0000
Message-ID: <50C644F6.3090901@pscs.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:24:22 +0000
From: Paul Smith <paul@pscs.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: asrg@irtf.org
References: <20121206212116.10328.qmail@joyce.lan> <50C1A95A.5000001@pscs.co.uk> <50C4A7F8.3010201@dcrocker.net> <CAFdugamTbTirVV2zXKOmc9oTaCS+QiTemhT=jvYJnHYscHQK7g@mail.gmail.com> <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20ACE6D0@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos> <20121209213307.D90C12429B@panix5.panix.com> <CAFduganBR_E-ui-3Xbic6F7qSmg1-Q+ideXLvb+1isLz8OF0Nw@mail.gmail.com> <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20ACFFE1@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos> <50C5A9A0.105@pscs.co.uk> <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20AD01B2@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos> <20121210145627.GA21217@gsp.org> <50C6121D.9040607@dcrocker.net>, <50C617A2.8090602@pscs.co.uk> <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20AD5E36@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos>
In-Reply-To: <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20AD5E36@ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Authenticated-Sender: paul
X-Server: VPOP3 Enterprise V6.0 - Registered
X-Organisation: Paul Smith Computer Services
Subject: Re: [Asrg] whitelisting links (was Re: misconception in SPF)
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:30:22 -0000

On 10/12/2012 18:23, Martijn Grooten wrote:
>> I'd say yes because it would probably
>> catch 99% of the bad links that I see in phishing/spam
> No it would not, not even close to that. A lot of spam links to legitimate but compromised domains.
Maybe - but most of those compromised domains are not domains which the 
user would normally go to.

So, even if the link is to a 'legitimate' domain, the vast majority 
would be to domains which the user does not recognise. So, it would 
catch those.

Remember, the idea wasn't to have a 'global' list of 'good domains', but 
ones which the *user* has whitelisted, so the user recognises them.



-

Paul Smith Computer Services
Tel: 01484 855800
Vat No: GB 685 6987 53