On Friday, April 16, 2004, 12:49:07 PM, Matt Kettler wrote: > DNSBLs are also inherently by far more scaleable than static SA rules. Why? > because you don't need to store the entire database on your local machine.
I agree, but... > Witness the overhead of SURBL vs BigEvil. In some fairness BigEvil represents a much larger dataset than sc.surbl.org does currently. (sc.surbl.org has about 500 of the most reported SpamCop URI domains while BigEvil probably contains the equivalent of thousands of domains.) A better comparison if someone wanted to do two performance tests might be to compare Bill Stearns' sa-blacklist in SA rule form versus essentially his same data turned into a name-RBL in the SURBL ws.surbl.org. In particular using an RBL moves the storage of the spam domain data out of SA memory and into the local name service cache. Speaking of which, I meant to properly announce the availability of Bill's list as an RBL.... Jeff C.
