----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >-----Original Message----- > >From: Bill Landry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 11:04 AM > >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: Feature Request: Whitelist_DNSRBL > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> >> Was the whitelist you were referring to really the SURBL > >server-side > >> whitelist? > >> > > >> > > >> > Yes! But local SURBL whitelists are needed to reduce > >traffic and time. > >> > >> > >> I'd much rather see SURBL respond with 127.0.0.0 with a > >really large TTL > >> for white listed domains. Any sensible setup will run a > >local DNS cache > >> which will take care of the load and time issue. > > > >I agree, and have suggested a whitelist SURBL several times on > >the SURBL > >discussion list, but it has always fallen on deaf ears - nary > >a response. > >It would be nice if someone would at least respond as to why > >this is not a > >reasonable suggestion. > > Well we have talked about it and .... didn't come up with a solid answer. > The idea would cause more lookups and time for those who don't cache dns. We > do have a whitelist that our private research tools do poll. The idea is > that if it isn't in SURBL then it is white. > > This also puts more work to the already overworked contributors. ;) Actually, I was thinking of the whitelist that Jeff has already compiled at http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelist-domains.sort (currently over 66,500 whitelisted domains). If you set a long TTL on the query responses, it would certainly cut down on follow-up queries for anyone that is running a caching dns. It would also be a lot less resource intensive then trying to run a local whitelist.cf of over 66,500 whitelisted domains. Anyway, just a thought... Bill
