Talk:.pw

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Micronesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Micronesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicronesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MicronesiaTemplate:WikiProject MicronesiaMicronesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Palau (assessed as Low-importance).

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Source for Significant Spam Mail? edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I have added a "Citation Needed" tag to the sentence claiming that this TLD is "a source for significant spam mail." Without a neutral citation, this sentence should be removed all together, in my opinion. If it is not removed, it should, at the very least, be changed to "a significant source of spam mail." This correctly relates the observation that it is the source (the TLD) that is significant, and not the spam mail. IrishCowboy (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I removed the "Citation Needed" tag and added two references from Symantec dealing with the .pw spamming and phishing issue. One of the links even quantified the level of .pw spam detected. Jmccormac (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Was that just a spike associated with a new TLD being available to the public, presumably at some discount? According to https://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/tlds/ (accessed just now) .pw shows "pw = 2.9% bad (score 0.23)", while .com (for example) shows "com = 6.3% bad (score 0.78)", so it does not appear to be the case any longer. I could not find recent reports that link it with spam - just from 2013, although absence of evidence is not strong evidence, my feeling is this is no longer true.Thejackos (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

It has probably been overtaken by some of the new gTLDs offering free or extremely low cost registrations at this stage. These would be more attractive as disposable domains. Jmccormac (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

russia blyat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4101:2215:9062:6C8F:A690:D6F2 (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic