-----Original Message----- From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 5:07 PM To: SURBL Discuss Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] RFC: Combined SURBL list details, phishing list ready
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.
Yeah we will just transfer. Actually WS is so more up to date, the amount of unique hits keeps getting smaller. Partly because I used to be the only game in town, I felt the preasure to to keep updated. Now I don't thanks to you guys :) So I'm trying to work on a bunch of things and not updating as often. My ninja regex skills were getting rusty ;)
--Chris
-
Chris Santerre