https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6048
--- Comment #32 from Anthony Howe <[email protected]> 2009-01-23 12:04:40 PST --- (In reply to comment #31) > (In reply to comment #29 and comment #30) > Regarding the 127.0.0.1 suggestion, given that each child process is > independent and all the DNS queries are sent out at once to be checked > asynchronously as the replies come in, how would that work? Won't we have to > have an additional 127.0.0.1 query per RBL and then wait for the reply before > sending the actual queries, and wouldn't that make every process have to wait > the extra time for the replies to that query, and wouldn't that only reduce > the > load from those very high volume users by a factor of the the average number > of > URLs queried per message (because they still get one 127.0.0.1 query per > message) which might not be enough to solve the problem from them anyway? Or > is > that last issue not a problem because you can make the response to 127.0.0.1 > have a very large TTL? As I mentioned before, DNS allows for multiple questions in a single query. So one could query both "some.domain.black.uribl.com" and "1.0.0.127.black.uribl.com" in the same packet. If you get a result back that includes the 127.0.0.1 check, then you drop a file into the spamassassin local config dir or into /var/tmp like uribl.com.OFF or some such. Each child can check for a blacklist .OFF file before proceeding. The above assumes that the DNS software supports multiple questions per query. The alternative is to periodically poll 127.0.0.1, which could be done by the parent process and so disable a blacklist before spawning new children. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
