[SURBL-Discuss] RFC: Combined SURBL list details, phishing
raymond at prolocation.net
Thu May 13 17:30:41 CEST 2004
> >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
> So again, consider BE non exhistant for future upgrades. It will save one
> lookup ;)
Congrats! Good news.
More information about the Discuss