You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Raymond Dijkxhoorn <ra...@prolocation.net> on 2004/06/15 01:18:02 UTC
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Which rules are replaces by *.surbl.org?
Hi!
> > Yes, but I want to add that there _WILL_ be a "BigEvil style" cf version of
> > ws.surbl.org for those people who won't/can't use the SURBL net lookups for
> > some strange reason. This is still being worked on. One of the main reasons
> > I haven't updates BE in a while is because I've been working on the new WS
> > submission stuff. (Thanks to everyone who is involved in that!)
>
> Thanks, I forgot about that other direction of rules style
> entries moving from sa-blacklist back into bigevil.cf. Sounds
> like the best of both worlds in a nice mirror of both types:
>
> A. ws.surbl.org gets all the "static" domains from BigEvil,
> sa-blacklist, etc. in the form of a SURBL.
>
> B. BigEvil.cf gets all the domains, including those from
> sa-blacklist, heavily wildcarded ones, etc. in the form of a
> ruleset.
I dont see the problem listsing them inside a SURBL. The extra few kb it
will take on the nameservers ? For me i would like to put the preassure on
DNS, not on every single box that has to do expression lookups, those will
cost a lot more CPU... Most of the times its not the nameservers that cant
keep up, but the mailboxes...
> Also: *when should we announce that be domains are now in ws, and
> that people should stop using be?* Is everyone comfortable that
> the combined ws is now working as expected, including the be
> domains being folded in?
Yes. Let me know when i should start slaving them. Same applies for the
rsync...
Bye,
Raymond.
Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Which rules are replaces by *.surbl.org?
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
[setting back to the correct distribution list; I broke it by
manually setting the SA developers list before.]
On Monday, June 14, 2004, 4:18:02 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
>> > Yes, but I want to add that there _WILL_ be a "BigEvil style" cf version of
>> > ws.surbl.org for those people who won't/can't use the SURBL net lookups for
>> > some strange reason. This is still being worked on. One of the main reasons
>> > I haven't updates BE in a while is because I've been working on the new WS
>> > submission stuff. (Thanks to everyone who is involved in that!)
>>
>> Thanks, I forgot about that other direction of rules style
>> entries moving from sa-blacklist back into bigevil.cf. Sounds
>> like the best of both worlds in a nice mirror of both types:
>>
>> A. ws.surbl.org gets all the "static" domains from BigEvil,
>> sa-blacklist, etc. in the form of a SURBL.
>>
>> B. BigEvil.cf gets all the domains, including those from
>> sa-blacklist, heavily wildcarded ones, etc. in the form of a
>> ruleset.
> I dont see the problem listsing them inside a SURBL. The extra few kb it
> will take on the nameservers ? For me i would like to put the preassure on
> DNS, not on every single box that has to do expression lookups, those will
> cost a lot more CPU... Most of the times its not the nameservers that cant
> keep up, but the mailboxes...
ws.surbl.org will continue to get all the domains that are
practical to enumerate from sa-blacklist, BigEvil.cf, MidEvil.cf,
etc. We don't be getting heavily wildcarded ones or ones with
regular expression ranges, etc, into SURBLs since BIND and
rbldnsd would not know how to handle them.
Something like *spammer.biz would be impossible to enumerate,
for example, whereas spammer[0-2].biz can be successfully
enumerated and would be included in ws.surbl.org as spammer0.biz,
spammer1.biz, spammer2.biz .
Does that sound right? :-)
>> Also: *when should we announce that be domains are now in ws, and
>> that people should stop using be?* Is everyone comfortable that
>> the combined ws is now working as expected, including the be
>> domains being folded in?
> Yes. Let me know when i should start slaving them. Same applies for the
> rsync...
ws and be changes should propagate automatically as things are
set up now.
We're still waiting to hear back from people about the
performance, especially a false positive rate from ob.surbl.org
before announcing or distributing them. And multi.surbl.org
presumably doesn't have code that can use it yet. Those are the
only new lists needing some feedback/coding.
Jeff C.