You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Chris Santerre <cs...@MerchantsOverseas.com> on 2004/09/22 22:40:47 UTC
SA 3.0 and Bigevil
I just updated Bigevil, which now is 1.25 megs in size. It will consume the
souls of your server, your family, and that cute girl/guy at your local
coffee shop!
With the release of SA 3.0, for the love of all that is digital, use SURBL!!
Tell your ISP's to upgrade. Tell them to contact me to be larted if you
must! But we should really make BigEvil retire. It has served its purpose.
Let it rest its remaining days on a calm silver lake in the White Mountains
of New Hampshire.
--Chris (Crying over the NHL.)
Re: SA 3.0 and Bigevil
Posted by Raquel Rice <ra...@thericehouse.net>.
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:40:47 -0400
Chris Santerre <cs...@MerchantsOverseas.com> wrote:
> I just updated Bigevil, which now is 1.25 megs in size. It will
> consume the souls of your server, your family, and that cute
> girl/guy at your local coffee shop!
>
> With the release of SA 3.0, for the love of all that is digital,
> use SURBL!!
>
>
> Tell your ISP's to upgrade. Tell them to contact me to be larted
> if you must! But we should really make BigEvil retire. It has
> served its purpose. Let it rest its remaining days on a calm
> silver lake in the White Mountains of New Hampshire.
>
> --Chris (Crying over the NHL.)
>
What would happen if you just announced that <somefuturedate> will
be the last update? Would you lose your purpose for living? (I
don't think so)
--
Raquel
============================================================
We can't all be heroes because somebody has to sit on the curb and
clap as they go by.
--Will Rogers
Re: SA 3.0 and Bigevil
Posted by Mike Jackson <mj...@cmc.net>.
> Hmm..silver lake? Wouldnt it be hacked to pieces by a guy in a hockey
> mask?
That's CRYSTAL Lake, not Silver Lake :)
Mike Jackson
Re: SA 3.0 and Bigevil
Posted by Jim Maul <jm...@elih.org>.
Quoting Chris Santerre <cs...@MerchantsOverseas.com>:
> I just updated Bigevil, which now is 1.25 megs in size. It will consume the
> souls of your server, your family, and that cute girl/guy at your local
> coffee shop!
>
> With the release of SA 3.0, for the love of all that is digital, use SURBL!!
>
>
> Tell your ISP's to upgrade. Tell them to contact me to be larted if you
> must! But we should really make BigEvil retire. It has served its purpose.
> Let it rest its remaining days on a calm silver lake in the White Mountains
> of New Hampshire.
>
> --Chris (Crying over the NHL.)
I realize that you are continually updating BE because you're such a nice guy
and all, but instead of pleading for everyone to stop using it, wouldnt it be
easier to just stop updating it? I would think people would tend to use it
less if it was outdated.
Hmm..silver lake? Wouldnt it be hacked to pieces by a guy in a hockey mask?
-Jim
Re: SA 3.0 and Bigevil
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Wednesday, September 22, 2004, 2:34:41 PM, Codger Codger wrote:
> I thought SURBL was built in to 3.0 was I mistaken?
Yes, SA 3.0 has built in support for SURBLs, so anyone using
BigEvil should use ws.surbl.org instead and save a huge
amount of SA memory. In other words if you're using 3.0,
don't use BigEvil. 3.0 already does what BigEvil does,
but using ws.surbl.org by default.
The same applies to anyone using BigEvil with earlier versions
of SpamAssassin such as 2.63 and 2.64, which can also be used
with SURBLs using SpamCopURI:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/spamcopuri/
Jeff C.
__
> On Sep 22, 2004, at 4:40 PM, Chris Santerre wrote:
>> I just updated Bigevil, which now is 1.25 megs in size. It will
>> consume the
>> souls of your server, your family, and that cute girl/guy at your local
>> coffee shop!
>>
>> With the release of SA 3.0, for the love of all that is digital, use
>> SURBL!!
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
http://www.surbl.org/
Re: SA 3.0 and Bigevil
Posted by Codger <li...@pmbx.net>.
I thought SURBL was built in to 3.0 was I mistaken?
On Sep 22, 2004, at 4:40 PM, Chris Santerre wrote:
> I just updated Bigevil, which now is 1.25 megs in size. It will
> consume the
> souls of your server, your family, and that cute girl/guy at your local
> coffee shop!
>
> With the release of SA 3.0, for the love of all that is digital, use
> SURBL!!
>
>
> Tell your ISP's to upgrade. Tell them to contact me to be larted if you
> must! But we should really make BigEvil retire. It has served its
> purpose.
> Let it rest its remaining days on a calm silver lake in the White
> Mountains
> of New Hampshire.
>
> --Chris (Crying over the NHL.)
>
>
Kindest regards,
Ron
The men and women of our great country, whose service or
whose heart for an oppressed and weak people have led to
the altar of final sacrifice, cry out loudly declaring
freedom a treasured right, not a privileged commodity.
These are true heroes.
Re: SA 3.0 and Bigevil
Posted by David Brodbeck <gu...@gull.us>.
---------- Forwarded Message -----------
From: Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>
To: "David Brodbeck" <gu...@gull.us>
Sent: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 08:07:05 -0700
Subject: Re: SA 3.0 and Bigevil
On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 7:42:04 AM, David Brodbeck wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 07:30:51 -0700, Jeff Chan wrote
>> > More efficiently? What if you are on a slow network connection? Should
>> > you use the network tests?
>>
>> > -chuck
>>
>> Yes, you could trade off memory usage for network usage. Be
>> aware that BigEvil will take up a huge amount of memory though.
> An alternative might be to run a local DNS caching server. The ideal
> situation would be to run it on the same machine SpamAssassin is on. I do
> this, using my ISP's DNS servers as forwarders.
Good point. Can you post this suggestion to the list along with
the URL:
http://www.surbl.org/rsync-signup.html
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
http://www.surbl.org/
------- End of Forwarded Message -------
Re: SA 3.0 and Bigevil
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 6:46:00 AM, Chuck Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 05:03:34PM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
>>
>> Stop using BigEvil if you're using SA 3 with network tests.
>>
> More efficiently? What if you are on a slow network connection? Should
> you use the network tests?
> -chuck
Yes, you could trade off memory usage for network usage. Be
aware that BigEvil will take up a huge amount of memory though.
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
http://www.surbl.org/
Re: SA 3.0 and Bigevil
Posted by Chuck Campbell <ca...@accelinc.com>.
On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 05:03:34PM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
>
> Stop using BigEvil if you're using SA 3 with network tests.
>
More efficiently? What if you are on a slow network connection? Should
you use the network tests?
-chuck
Re: SA 3.0 and Bigevil
Posted by Kai Schaetzl <ma...@conactive.com>.
Jeff Chan wrote on Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:03:34 -0700:
> Stop using BigEvil if you're using SA 3 with network tests.
>
I'd remove "with network tests" from that statement. We don't do any of
the "traditional" network tests (I let it do by sendmail), but we enabled
the URIDNSBL plugin. You can still set "skip_rbl_checks 1" and use
URIDNSBL at the same time.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winware.org
RE: SA 3.0 and Bigevil
Posted by "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight Solutions" <mi...@blacknightsolutions.com>.
> Anyone using SA 3 with network tests enabled, Net::DNS
> installed and URIDNSBL rules active (which they are by
> default in 3.0.0) should stop using BigEvil.
>
> The static domains in BigEvil are now in the SURBL list
> ws.surbl.org which is enabled by default in SA 3.0.0 along
> with all other current SURBLs, so all you will really gain by
> using BigEvil is really big memory usage. WS will do
> essentially the same thing as BigEvil, but much more efficiently.
>
> Stop using BigEvil if you're using SA 3 with network tests.
>
And anybody using SA 2.6* should use spamcop URI :)
Michele
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd
Hosting, co-location & domains
http://www.blacknight.ie/
Tel. +353 59 9137101
--
Email scanned by Blacknight for viruses and dangerous content.
Visit http://www.blacknight.ie for more information
Re: SA 3.0 and Bigevil
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Sunday, September 26, 2004, 2:17:40 PM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> When I upgraded our first systems to
> 3.0 RCs earlier this month I immediately removed bigevil from
> rules_du_jour and switched on SURBL. bigevil consumes the same amount of
> RAM on 2.64 and I think it doesn't really give that much back. I left it
> running on those of our systems which are still on 2.64 for compatibility
> reasons and can afford that RAM drain. I don't think that the SA accuracy
> will drop much when removing it. So, when you want to retire it, just go
> ahead. It was a good idea, but it's finally hitting a threshold ...
It's definitely worth repeating:
Anyone using SA 3 with network tests enabled, Net::DNS installed
and URIDNSBL rules active (which they are by default in 3.0.0)
should stop using BigEvil.
The static domains in BigEvil are now in the SURBL list
ws.surbl.org which is enabled by default in SA 3.0.0 along with
all other current SURBLs, so all you will really gain by using
BigEvil is really big memory usage. WS will do essentially
the same thing as BigEvil, but much more efficiently.
Stop using BigEvil if you're using SA 3 with network tests.
Cheers,
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
http://www.surbl.org/
Re: SA 3.0 and Bigevil
Posted by Kai Schaetzl <ma...@conactive.com>.
Chris Santerre wrote on Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:40:47 -0400:
> It will consume the
> souls of your server, your family, and that cute girl/guy at your local
> coffee shop!
>
Isn't that what "big evil" does? ;-) When I upgraded our first systems to
3.0 RCs earlier this month I immediately removed bigevil from
rules_du_jour and switched on SURBL. bigevil consumes the same amount of
RAM on 2.64 and I think it doesn't really give that much back. I left it
running on those of our systems which are still on 2.64 for compatibility
reasons and can afford that RAM drain. I don't think that the SA accuracy
will drop much when removing it. So, when you want to retire it, just go
ahead. It was a good idea, but it's finally hitting a threshold ...
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winware.org