On 19 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 14:57, Charlie Watts wrote:
> > And I'm actually playing with Razor again. It isn't nearly as broken as it
> > was for a while. But I've got some spare CPU cycles to throw at Razor
> > right now. Razor probably wouldn't be worth re-implem
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 01:06:06PM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > > On 20 Feb 2002, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> > >
> > > > The biggest problem with razor at present is the lack of vetting of
> > > > inp
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 01:06:06PM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > On 20 Feb 2002, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> >
> > > The biggest problem with razor at present is the lack of vetting of
> > > input, and some form of input validation is essential if
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
> >
> > > And I'm actually playing with Razor again. It isn't nearly as broken as it
> > > was for a while. But I've got some spare CPU cycles to throw at Razor
>
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
>
> > And I'm actually playing with Razor again. It isn't nearly as broken as it
> > was for a while. But I've got some spare CPU cycles to throw at Razor
> > right now. Razor probably wouldn't be worth re-imple
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 01:06:06PM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2002, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
>
> > The biggest problem with razor at present is the lack of vetting of
> > input, and some form of input validation is essential if razor is to be
> > more than a curiosity - for example
Hi,
> > Razor's trivial to re-do in C. Simply use DNS - allow people to lookup
> > md5sum.razor.org (or whatever the domain is to be) and map the Razor db to
> > a DNS db. Use DJBDNS, it's trivial. Really incredibly trivial.
> The biggest problem with razor at present is the lack of vetting of
>
On 20 Feb 2002, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> The biggest problem with razor at present is the lack of vetting of
> input, and some form of input validation is essential if razor is to be
> more than a curiosity - for example at present it appears all BUGTRAQ
> postings are being entered into the r
On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 10:46, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
>
> > And I'm actually playing with Razor again. It isn't nearly as broken as it
> > was for a while. But I've got some spare CPU cycles to throw at Razor
> > right now. Razor probably wouldn't be worth
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
> And I'm actually playing with Razor again. It isn't nearly as broken as it
> was for a while. But I've got some spare CPU cycles to throw at Razor
> right now. Razor probably wouldn't be worth re-implementing in a C
> re-write, but the Rhyolite.com DCC
On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 14:57, Charlie Watts wrote:
> > but procmail can...
> > (assuming there is a razor client somewhere)
>
> No, it can't. The procmail interfaces to DNS Blacklists are all call-out
> programs ... it is possible to parse out the received headers and pass
> those to a dns looker-
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Arpi wrote:
> > 3. Allow for far greater loads than will fit on a single mail processing
> > machine (regardless of how many CPUs you cram in your starfire box) by
> > enabling the processing load to be spread around a network. The network
> ok, you're right here, i must agr
Hi,
> > For the perl version, spamd+spamc solution (i would call it a messy
> > hack) is a workaround for perl's 'booting/startup' overload.
> It's really not so messy of a hack, and it's designed for a couple
> purposes:
>
> 1. work around perl's 'booting/startup' overload (though this would b
On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 13:02, Arpi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I think what would be a lot more interesting is spamd in C or C++. The
> > major benefit I can think of of going to C is performance (though I'm
> > not necessarily convinced you'll beat perl for doing text processing),
> > and if performance
Hi,
> I think what would be a lot more interesting is spamd in C or C++. The
> major benefit I can think of of going to C is performance (though I'm
> not necessarily convinced you'll beat perl for doing text processing),
> and if performance is what you care about, you'll be wanting to use
> sp
On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 03:56, Arpi wrote:
> so, my primary goal: make a small but very fast, efficient version to be
> used on very high traffic mail servers. and, by allowing several instances
> at the same time make possible to profit from SMP.
> (afaik spamd only processes a single mail at the s
Hi,
> > There are many pros and contras to C version, i won't list these, it's on
> > your fantasy.
>
> I can imagine a few of them, but am curious what you are thinking of as
> the pros and cons.
ok...
pros:
- portability (on unix platforms)
- much better speed (on my test p3 perl version with
17 matches
Mail list logo
