----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Chan" jeffc@surbl.org
Just wondering if the whitelisting will help us to be more accurate in tagging the spammer URI in the message, thus cutting down the possibility of the spammer URI not being one of the
random
25 selected for checking against the SURBLs.
I'm curious to know what effect the SURBL whitelisting has as it applies
to
both SA 2.6x with the SpamCopURI plug-in and SA 3.0 with the URIDNSBL plug-in and the random URI check limit threshold.
[SNIP]
If you'd like, you can have a similar effect right now by adding the top N domains from:
http://www.surbl.org/dns-queries.whitelist.counts.txt
to the SpamCopURI manual whitelist in the conf file. You'd want to include both basedomain.com and *.basedomain.com . In fact this should be a good improvement for everyone using SpamCopURI to add.
Hmmm, tried this overnight and it cut my SURBL hit rate down to almost nothing. I'm not sure why, unless the whitelist data is not being read into memory and thus the list has to be parsed with each individual e-mail message before the SURBL queries can be done. If that's the case, then it could be possible that the queries are taking to long to start and SA is timing them out based on the network tests timer expiration setting.
Or, could it be that if the SpamCopURI plug-in finds a whitelisted domain, that it skips any further SURBL tests for that message? That could also account for the very low hit rates when using the whitelist entries.
Bill