[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) writes: > We were considering it, since it'd be doable now that we prefork and keep > a spamd process running for a few hundred messages. However, the other > devs were pretty sure that a local caching "named" process would probably > do the trick nicely enough. (me, I'm not quite convinced ;)
1. As others have stated and I'm sure you know, negative caching should work on a local DNS caching server. 2. Are you willing to write the code in the hopes it helps? Show me the benchmark and I'll follow along. :-) Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
