On 1 May 2006 at 17:51, Richard Laager wrote:
> Since we do reject on it, I can't say how efficient it is compared to
> other tests. From a quick log search, I see this test rejects about
> 38,000 messages per week, after things like RBLs and HELO checks (which
> block about 15,74,000 messages per week.)
>
> In general, my philosophy is that anything which can prevent a
> SpamAssassin run is good. Running SA on a message is very CPU intensive
> and involves lots of network queries as well.
Agreed. I'd have to go back and check how many of these required SA to
cause a reject. ISTR that greylisting and HELO checks got all but a
few.
--
Jeff Rife | "There was a guy that was killed just like this
| over in Jersey."
| "Yeah, but I figure, 'What the hell,
| that's Jersey.'"
| -- "Highlander"
_______________________________________________
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
