On 04/12/2007, W B Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen Gran wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 06:53:42PM +0000, W B Hacker said: > >> Why wait until acl_smtp_data and invoke a perl script to do what Exim can > >> do > >> with much less workload in the acl_smtp_connect phase? > > > > SURBL and URIBL are not what you think they are. > > Perhaps not. > > Can your tell me how they differ from the same-named ones included in > SpamAssassin?
They don't. But exim_surbl provides a more lightweight way of checking them - and since many sites consider a SURBL or URIBL hit as a binary result (ie a hit = treat as spam), you can avoid the expense of running the message through SA. -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
