http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5820
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-11 07:42 ------- (In reply to comment #7) > The Spamhaus guys will tell you that PBL is inappropriate for URI checking for > the reason I gave earlier. yes, we (still) know that ;) > The only advantage would be caching of zen. Larry says -- >> > >in other words would it be more efficient to query zen instead of SBL, if >> > >we only want SBL data? >> > >> > Well, that's a hard call. The "more efficient" could be variable, >> > and probably small. As you well know, URIBL_SBL is not the same as >> > RCVD_IN_SBL. The connecting IP will almost never been the URI's >> > IP. Early Storm may have done this, but now it sends from one bot >> > with an IP or URI of another. So, the DNS caching does not really >> > buy anything. >> > >> > But in general, I'd guess it's a bit more efficient (for both the >> > user and for us) as we figure (and hope) most places will query >> > zen.spamhaus.org for up-front blocking, or if not that, at least in >> > SA to then do the spam-tests. This then caches all the answers from >> > all 3 zones (or more) which any later queries have local access to. >> > >> > There would be some "funny math" as to the efficiency if we ever >> > change the TTL's on individual zones, but I don't think we're >> > planning on doing that. >> > >> > Hope that answers? >> >>so you're saying it might be marginally more effective for us to query >>Zen for those URIBL_SBL lookups? > >Yep. It won't be less effective, parity is seldom reached in >designs, so it would be more effective. But not effective on the >huge % of spam that is botnet spam, but can be effective on the % >that is from static blocks where spam is sent and pages are >hosted. So, whatever % that is, will be the increase. (it's just occurred to me -- it'll improve matter for the *non* spam case too.) ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
