Special Rules, are they working as expected?

[spirillen]

As I am working on https://github.com/mitchellkrogza/phishing/pull/325/files#diff-365e9f086474958b3c3480c084f5376aa2860b057a5d1fb0cde97e0cf7d495dfR44 I come to look up for Phishing-Database/Phishing.Database#813 to figure out which files of @mitchellkrogza that would be the source file for VT as I could not find pichinchamasbeneficios.pe in my lookup library.

Now I stumble on http://0-i-fdik.000webhostapp.com/ in https://github.com/mitchellkrogza/Phishing.Database/blob/d3d9bfca3f4f524940c2a56b4af8fdeaf39eb800/active-domains.adblock#L7C12-L7C29 and went for testing it with curl/tor. The site returns HTTP code 410 as we have been adding to the rules ⬇️ Line 80 -> 82

PyFunceble/PyFunceble/checker/availability/extras/rules.py

Lines 80 to 82 in f9f5c03

	r"\.000webhostapp\.com": [
	(self.switch_to_down_if_status_code, 410),
	],

My next thought is then, are the rules.py script prepared for handling multiply HTTPS codes as added for weebly?

PyFunceble/PyFunceble/checker/availability/extras/rules.py

Line 111 in f9f5c03

r"\.weebly\.com$": [(self.switch_to_down_if_status_code, {"404", "406"})],

---

Alternative though... are the big backend of @PyFunceble test network updated to latest #pyfunceble?

[funilrys]

Interesting. I think, this relates to #358 and the fixes I introduced.

[spirillen]

We'll find out when the big phishing list is running the next test.