You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Sujit Acharyya-choudhury <s....@bbk.ac.uk> on 2015/08/06 14:38:59 UTC
Rules using WOT
Is there any SA rule which use WOT (Web of Trust)? I find WOT a very
valuable tool to find out about the reputation of URL and an integration
with SA will be invaluable.
Regards
Sujit Choudhury
Re: Rules using WOT
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>.
Sujit Acharyya-choudhury skrev den 2015-08-06 14:38:
> Is there any SA rule which use WOT (Web of Trust)? I find WOT a very
> valuable tool to find out about the reputation of URL and an
> integration with SA will be invaluable.
same here, it just sadly not done yet :(
i have talked long with developpers to get domain reputution on urls,
not just on awl and txrep
what i have done self is change whitelist scores :=)
so if i know a domain it will be listed in whitelist foo, but with a
neotral score, that way its possible to see if its new spam or known in
advance, most url spam will like you to press a link, but thay cant
force one to doit :=)
helping spamassasin to know that get spammers loosing very fast
if i was not just a simple comal programmer in my school time, i would
have done a perl porting
but lets see if it come in txrep ?
Re: Rules using WOT
Posted by RW <rw...@googlemail.com>.
On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 22:35:54 +0200
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> RW skrev den 2015-08-06 21:03:
>
> > "WOT also uses information from numerous
> > trusted sources, such as phishing and malware blacklists, to
> > provide the WOT community with real time information."
> >
> > It look like the part of WOT that might be useful for mail filtering
> > comes from third parties.
>
> api is not defined yet, so a bit unfair
The object of WOT is to protect users at the time a link is clicked,
not when the link is mailed, posted etc. This means it can continue to
accumulate useful evidence long after a spam run is complete.
I think it's pretty unlikely that it adds much to spam filtering
in the short time before a URI starts to appear in URIBLs.
Any attempt to evaluate WOT should take careful account of what URIBLs
it might be using.
> its not like it would just be if wot knows this domain its
> whitelisted ...
It's not feasible to take account of good reputations in the scoring,
URIs in a spam are under the control of the spammer.
Even if spammers didn't actively try to abuse it, it can still fail.
For example, even the most spam-friendly email provider will have a
good WOP reputation for their website. SA may find that domain in a
default signature or on the RHS of an email address in the body.
Good reputations wouldn't even be useful to mitigate URIBL FPs, unless
the two results are known to be for the same domain - and that would
require substantial change to URIBL handling.
Re: Rules using WOT
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>.
RW skrev den 2015-08-06 21:03:
> "WOT also uses information from numerous
> trusted sources, such as phishing and malware blacklists, to provide
> the WOT community with real time information."
>
> It look like the part of WOT that might be useful for mail filtering
> comes from third parties.
api is not defined yet, so a bit unfair
its not like it would just be if wot knows this domain its whitelisted
or another listed, it was more to get api defined in a way to get
results into sa from wot ot for that matter maybe trustpilot
atleast for now its just starting to possible get usefull or not
Re: Rules using WOT
Posted by Axb <ax...@gmail.com>.
On 06.08.2015 21:03, RW wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:35:52 -0400
> Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
>> On 8/6/2015 8:38 AM, Sujit Acharyya-choudhury wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there any SA rule which use WOT (Web of Trust)? I find WOT a
>>> very valuable tool to find out about the reputation of URL and an
>>> integration with SA will be invaluable.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Sujit Choudhury
>>>
>> The integration would be trivial however, WOT does not provide their
>> data or an API to their data that I'm aware of except for buying it
>> at https://www.mywot.com/en/business
>>
>> I'll reach out. Perhaps they would consider a free for most model
>> like we have used for RBLs.
>
> I doubt it's all that much use.
>
> It's not sensible to score URIs with good reputations.
>
> The absence of a reputation wouldn't be worth much. There're a lot of
> smaller sites without reputations and it wouldn't work well with SA's
> aggressive URI parsing.
>
> If you look in the FAQ it says.
>
> "WOT also uses information from numerous
> trusted sources, such as phishing and malware blacklists, to provide
> the WOT community with real time information."
>
> It look like the part of WOT that might be useful for mail filtering
> comes from third parties.
including SURBL, Phishtank and other stufff already used by SA via URIBL.pm
Re: Rules using WOT
Posted by RW <rw...@googlemail.com>.
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:35:52 -0400
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 8/6/2015 8:38 AM, Sujit Acharyya-choudhury wrote:
> >
> > Is there any SA rule which use WOT (Web of Trust)? I find WOT a
> > very valuable tool to find out about the reputation of URL and an
> > integration with SA will be invaluable.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Sujit Choudhury
> >
> The integration would be trivial however, WOT does not provide their
> data or an API to their data that I'm aware of except for buying it
> at https://www.mywot.com/en/business
>
> I'll reach out. Perhaps they would consider a free for most model
> like we have used for RBLs.
I doubt it's all that much use.
It's not sensible to score URIs with good reputations.
The absence of a reputation wouldn't be worth much. There're a lot of
smaller sites without reputations and it wouldn't work well with SA's
aggressive URI parsing.
If you look in the FAQ it says.
"WOT also uses information from numerous
trusted sources, such as phishing and malware blacklists, to provide
the WOT community with real time information."
It look like the part of WOT that might be useful for mail filtering
comes from third parties.
Re: Rules using WOT
Posted by Paul Stead <pa...@zeninternet.co.uk>.
On 06/08/15 15:35, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> The integration would be trivial however, WOT does not provide their
> data or an API to their data that I'm aware of except for buying it at
> https://www.mywot.com/en/business
https://www.mywot.com/wiki/API
API looks open to use, as long as following the terms -
https://www.mywot.com/en/terms and https://www.mywot.com/en/terms/api
--
Paul Stead
Systems Engineer
Zen Internet
Re: Rules using WOT
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>.
On 8/6/2015 12:38 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2015-08-06 16:35:
>
>> I'll reach out. Perhaps they would consider a free for most model
>> like we have used for RBLs.
>
> and another is https://www.trustpilot.com/
Roger that but it will be interesting to see if there is any value to
one of them as I predict it might be good data but massive overlap.
Re: Rules using WOT
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>.
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2015-08-06 16:35:
> I'll reach out. Perhaps they would consider a free for most model
> like we have used for RBLs.
and another is https://www.trustpilot.com/
Re: Rules using WOT
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>.
On 8/6/2015 8:38 AM, Sujit Acharyya-choudhury wrote:
>
> Is there any SA rule which use WOT (Web of Trust)? I find WOT a very
> valuable tool to find out about the reputation of URL and an
> integration with SA will be invaluable.
>
> Regards
>
> Sujit Choudhury
>
The integration would be trivial however, WOT does not provide their
data or an API to their data that I'm aware of except for buying it at
https://www.mywot.com/en/business
I'll reach out. Perhaps they would consider a free for most model like
we have used for RBLs.
Regards,
KAM