[SURBL-Discuss] Re: ANNOUNCE: Mail::SpamAsssassin::SpamCopURI 0.11

Simon Byrnand simon at igrin.co.nz
Thu Apr 22 16:55:28 CEST 2004

At 15:44 22/04/2004, Eric Kolve wrote:

> > > And as far as caching goes, it shouldn't be a problem, because you just
> > > want to avoid doing a whole string of identical dns lookups - only cache
> > > identical lookups, and the caching should only last for one run of SA
> > > processing one message...(We assume that no new blacklist records 
> appear in
> > > the middle of processing a specific message, or that if they do we don't
> > > care ;-)
> >
> > Yes, it's not clear if "per test" means per message, but it would
> > seem so.  That too should be fine.  I don't think we should worry
> > too much about the boundary condition of the SURBL changing in
> > the middle of message processing, which seems like it would be
> > uncommon.  Per-message caching is already a big help.
>'per test' literally means per test.  So if you run three 
>tests, then you will have at most three queries for the same domain.
>I would cache per message, but there isn't a good place to cache this data.
>I have access to PerMsgStatus, but its not a good idea to start
>shoving stuff into that hash as other code depends on its structure.

Per test is the right way to do it though isn't it ? So thats fine. The 
cached results of sc.surbl.org should have no bearing on 
ws.surbl.org...we're just trying to avoid literally identical dns queries, 
and spammer.com.sc.surbl.org and spammer.com.ws.surbl.org aren't identical.

But we don't want to see spammer.com.sc.surbl.org being queried 20 times 
for the same message ;-)


More information about the Discuss mailing list