----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Santerre" csanterre@MerchantsOverseas.com
-----Original Message----- From: Bill Landry [mailto:billl@pointshare.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 11:04 AM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org; discuss@lists.surbl.org Subject: Re: Feature Request: Whitelist_DNSRBL
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" spamassassin@dostech.ca
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