-----Original Message----- From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:27 PM To: SURBL Discuss Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] RFC: Combined SURBL list details, phishing list ready
*snip*
Actually I was getting tricky and proposing to collapse ws and be into a single response within a combined list. This was mainly to prevent needing to remove separate be entries later since it will probably be merged into ws eventually. I was proposing short circuiting that process in the combined list.
I would say consider BE to be WS as of now. Just work with WS, because BE is definetly going to be pulled in. How we do that on the backend won't matter to the clients. For all intensive purposes, I won't be updating BE, I will be updating WS directly thru the magic of Paul. (He's just swamped at the moment.)
So again, consider BE non exhistant for future upgrades. It will save one lookup ;)
--Chris
Hi!
Actually I was getting tricky and proposing to collapse ws and be into a single response within a combined list. This was mainly to prevent needing to remove separate be entries later since it will probably be merged into ws eventually. I was proposing short circuiting that process in the combined list.
I would say consider BE to be WS as of now. Just work with WS, because BE is definetly going to be pulled in. How we do that on the backend won't matter to the clients. For all intensive purposes, I won't be updating BE, I will be updating WS directly thru the magic of Paul. (He's just swamped at the moment.)
So again, consider BE non exhistant for future upgrades. It will save one lookup ;)
Congrats! Good news.
Bye, Raymond.
On Thursday, May 13, 2004, 7:21:35 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org]
Actually I was getting tricky and proposing to collapse ws and be into a single response within a combined list. This was mainly to prevent needing to remove separate be entries later since it will probably be merged into ws eventually. I was proposing short circuiting that process in the combined list.
I would say consider BE to be WS as of now. Just work with WS, because BE is definetly going to be pulled in. How we do that on the backend won't matter to the clients. For all intensive purposes, I won't be updating BE, I will be updating WS directly thru the magic of Paul. (He's just swamped at the moment.)
So again, consider BE non exhistant for future upgrades. It will save one lookup ;)
Sounds like you're saying we should not fold be in with ws for a combined list. Could we fold be in transparently into ws for the combined list, then remove it later (all invisibly to the users of the combined list)? Or are you guys already merging them behind the scenes? Want to try to get all the domains.... :-)
Jeff C.
-
Chris Santerre -
Jeff Chan -
Raymond Dijkxhoorn