[SURBL-Discuss] Re: [RD] Bigevil future looks bleak.

Jeff Chan jeffc at surbl.org
Wed Jul 28 16:14:41 CEST 2004


On Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 8:38:16 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:

>>From: Fred [mailto:spamassassin at freddyt.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 11:32 AM

>>Chris Santerre wrote:
>>> OK, BigEvil is out of control. My own mail server went into "Now
>>> everyone just hang on a minute!" mode :)
>>>
>>> There are just toooo many dang domains to use it anymore. Daemons
>>> spin out of control, queues fill, and babies cry!

>>I have an idea for it's rebirth.  Use the same type of setup I 
>>have going
>>for sc_top200.cf, take the top 200 hitters or maybe the previous 200+
>>domains (that were added) and keep bigevil updated with those.
>>
>>I wrote a script for the sc_top200.cf updates, I just run it 
>>once a day or
>>more when I update my rules.  Having some type of interface 
>>like this will
>>allow bigevil to live on, in a fully automated way (we love 
>>not working).
>>Worth an idea, I always like to code things up, keep it in mind!

> Hmmm.....but how would we know which would be the top 200? Get reports from
> the top DNS lookups from the surbl servers?

Taking the top N reported entries requires keeping stats of how
often each entry gets reported. That will work if there is a
feed of every report or every spam, but for manual lists
like some of those that probably go into ws, those counts
of reports per domain or address may not be known.

In other words, top N should come from the source reports
and for ws the counts may not be available or available in
a way that would allow comparison.  At least that's my
take on it.

Jeff C.



More information about the Discuss mailing list