I got it now, thank you. I will use the one-liner and see what will happen.And
indeed you are right, it will cost a DNS lookup, but it willSave you processing
on the server. Thanks again -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
Namens Jorey Bump
Verzonden: vrijdag 10 april 2009 22:27
Aan: M.A. GEERTSMA
CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
Onderwerp: Re: Spam list (dns hostnames) 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 relativelyinexpensive. zen.spamhaus.org is reliable enough
for outrightrejections, which can spare you the overhead of further
processingdownstream. If the message continues to the filter, and that filter
decides to doanother lookup, caching should make it even less expensive, but
you can probably exclude a particular RBL if you really feel the tuning
isnecessary. None of the information you've provided indicates a duplication
ofeffort, so I wouldn't worry about it until it becomes a problem. Toimprove
performance, you want to use as many lightweight techniques aspossible to
*avoid* invoking MailScanner/SpamAssassin in the firstplace, saving it for the
few that trickle through your initial gauntlet.
