M.A. GEERTSMA wrote, at 04/10/2009 03:13 PM: > I will replace the 3 lines by the 1, but would that be double because of > MailScanner. > btw, MailScanner uses a local file: phishing.bad.sites.conf which is > updated regulary.
You're missing the point, and comparing two unrelated features. reject_rbl_client incurs the cost of a DNS lookup, but it's relatively inexpensive. zen.spamhaus.org is reliable enough for outright rejections, which can spare you the overhead of further processing downstream. If the message continues to the filter, and that filter decides to do another lookup, caching should make it even less expensive, but you can probably exclude a particular RBL if you really feel the tuning is necessary. None of the information you've provided indicates a duplication of effort, so I wouldn't worry about it until it becomes a problem. To improve performance, you want to use as many lightweight techniques as possible to *avoid* invoking MailScanner/SpamAssassin in the first place, saving it for the few that trickle through your initial gauntlet.
