You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Nels Lindquist <nl...@maei.ca> on 2004/08/05 23:50:59 UTC
Using multi.surbl.org with SpamCopURI
Hi there.
While upgrading to SA 2.64, I decided to take advantage of the newer
versions of Mail::SpamAssassin::SpamCopURI which allow the use of
bitmasked SURBLs. I figured this might provide a slight performance
increase due to caching of SURBL lookups, so I created a new .cf file
using the new syntax (see attached).
I did a little testing with my caught spam folder, and I noticed
something odd--there seems to be a disparity between what's in
multi.surbl.org and in some of the individual lists (sc.surbl.org,
ws.surbl.org, etc.)
Is the multi.surbl.org synchronised dynamically to the individual
lists, or is there some lag?
For now I've switched back to using the individual lists, but I'm
wondering if there's an explanation?
----
Nels Lindquist <*>
Information Systems Manager
Morningstar Air Express Inc.
Re: Using multi.surbl.org with SpamCopURI
Posted by Ryan Moore <ry...@perigee.net>.
Jeff Chan wrote:
> On Thursday, August 5, 2004, 3:04:36 PM, Ryan Moore wrote:
>
>>I had asked about a similar question a week or two ago, and got the
>>impression that multi.surbl.org can only be used in SA3.0 due to the way
>>that SA performs the lookups. I wanted to be able to use the bit-masked
>>lookup since it is only one lookup as opposed to four or five as well.
>
>
> Hi Ryan,
> Eric has added support for the combined SURBL list in SpamCopURI
> 0.22.
>
> Jeff C.
Ah very cool, Thanks!
Ryan Moore
----------
Perigee.net Corporation
704-849-8355 (sales)
704-849-8017 (tech)
www.perigee.net
Re: Using multi.surbl.org with SpamCopURI
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Thursday, August 5, 2004, 3:04:36 PM, Ryan Moore wrote:
> I had asked about a similar question a week or two ago, and got the
> impression that multi.surbl.org can only be used in SA3.0 due to the way
> that SA performs the lookups. I wanted to be able to use the bit-masked
> lookup since it is only one lookup as opposed to four or five as well.
Hi Ryan,
Eric has added support for the combined SURBL list in SpamCopURI
0.22.
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
http://www.surbl.org/
Re: Using multi.surbl.org with SpamCopURI
Posted by Ryan Moore <ry...@perigee.net>.
Nels Lindquist wrote:
> Hi there.
>
> While upgrading to SA 2.64, I decided to take advantage of the newer
> versions of Mail::SpamAssassin::SpamCopURI which allow the use of
> bitmasked SURBLs. I figured this might provide a slight performance
> increase due to caching of SURBL lookups, so I created a new .cf file
> using the new syntax (see attached).
>
> I did a little testing with my caught spam folder, and I noticed
> something odd--there seems to be a disparity between what's in
> multi.surbl.org and in some of the individual lists (sc.surbl.org,
> ws.surbl.org, etc.)
>
> Is the multi.surbl.org synchronised dynamically to the individual
> lists, or is there some lag?
>
> For now I've switched back to using the individual lists, but I'm
> wondering if there's an explanation?
>
> ----
> Nels Lindquist <*>
> Information Systems Manager
> Morningstar Air Express Inc.
>
>
I had asked about a similar question a week or two ago, and got the
impression that multi.surbl.org can only be used in SA3.0 due to the way
that SA performs the lookups. I wanted to be able to use the bit-masked
lookup since it is only one lookup as opposed to four or five as well.
Ryan Moore
----------
Perigee.net Corporation
704-849-8355 (sales)
704-849-8017 (tech)
www.perigee.net
Re: Using multi.surbl.org with SpamCopURI
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Thursday, August 5, 2004, 2:50:59 PM, Nels Lindquist wrote:
> Is the multi.surbl.org synchronised dynamically to the individual
> lists, or is there some lag?
Yes, the source data in multi is generated at the same time as
the individual lists. The problem is that we currently have a
longish negative caching TTL on multi, which are are trying
to reduce to cut down on some of this lag that you noticed.
We hope to have it sorted out soon.
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
http://www.surbl.org/