On 19 Feb 2002, Craig Hughes wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 14:57, Charlie Watts wrote:
> > And I'm actually playing with Razor again. It isn't nearly as broken as it
> > was for a while. But I've got some spare CPU cycles to throw at Razor
> > right now. Razor probably wouldn't be worth re-implem
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 01:06:06PM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > > On 20 Feb 2002, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> > >
> > > > The biggest problem with razor at present is the lack of vetting of
> > > > inp
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 01:06:06PM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > On 20 Feb 2002, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> >
> > > The biggest problem with razor at present is the lack of vetting of
> > > input, and some form of input validation is essential if
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
> >
> > > And I'm actually playing with Razor again. It isn't nearly as broken as it
> > > was for a while. But I've got some spare CPU cycles to throw at Razor
>
I just noticed that sample-nonspam.txt from SA distro is in razor now. Doh!
C
on 2/20/02 3:39 AM, Nigel Metheringham at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 10:46, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
>>
>>> And I'm actually playing with Razor again. I
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
>
> > And I'm actually playing with Razor again. It isn't nearly as broken as it
> > was for a while. But I've got some spare CPU cycles to throw at Razor
> > right now. Razor probably wouldn't be worth re-imple
> Are they still not doing that?
> Wow, I'm surprised. A system like that
> really needs good vetting.
What "they" (Vilpul) are still doing is implementing a sophisticated
system with some details obfuscated to make it more difficult for people
to game the system, and not doing a whole lot of pub
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 01:06:06PM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2002, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
>
> > The biggest problem with razor at present is the lack of vetting of
> > input, and some form of input validation is essential if razor is to be
> > more than a curiosity - for example
Hi,
> > Razor's trivial to re-do in C. Simply use DNS - allow people to lookup
> > md5sum.razor.org (or whatever the domain is to be) and map the Razor db to
> > a DNS db. Use DJBDNS, it's trivial. Really incredibly trivial.
> The biggest problem with razor at present is the lack of vetting of
>
On 20 Feb 2002, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> The biggest problem with razor at present is the lack of vetting of
> input, and some form of input validation is essential if razor is to be
> more than a curiosity - for example at present it appears all BUGTRAQ
> postings are being entered into the r
On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 10:46, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
>
> > And I'm actually playing with Razor again. It isn't nearly as broken as it
> > was for a while. But I've got some spare CPU cycles to throw at Razor
> > right now. Razor probably wouldn't be worth
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
> And I'm actually playing with Razor again. It isn't nearly as broken as it
> was for a while. But I've got some spare CPU cycles to throw at Razor
> right now. Razor probably wouldn't be worth re-implementing in a C
> re-write, but the Rhyolite.com DCC
On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 14:57, Charlie Watts wrote:
> > but procmail can...
> > (assuming there is a razor client somewhere)
>
> No, it can't. The procmail interfaces to DNS Blacklists are all call-out
> programs ... it is possible to parse out the received headers and pass
> those to a dns looker-
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Arpi wrote:
> > 3. Allow for far greater loads than will fit on a single mail processing
> > machine (regardless of how many CPUs you cram in your starfire box) by
> > enabling the processing load to be spread around a network. The network
> ok, you're right here, i must agr
Hi,
> > For the perl version, spamd+spamc solution (i would call it a messy
> > hack) is a workaround for perl's 'booting/startup' overload.
> It's really not so messy of a hack, and it's designed for a couple
> purposes:
>
> 1. work around perl's 'booting/startup' overload (though this would b
On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 13:02, Arpi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I think what would be a lot more interesting is spamd in C or C++. The
> > major benefit I can think of of going to C is performance (though I'm
> > not necessarily convinced you'll beat perl for doing text processing),
> > and if performance
Hi,
> I think what would be a lot more interesting is spamd in C or C++. The
> major benefit I can think of of going to C is performance (though I'm
> not necessarily convinced you'll beat perl for doing text processing),
> and if performance is what you care about, you'll be wanting to use
> sp
On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 03:56, Arpi wrote:
> so, my primary goal: make a small but very fast, efficient version to be
> used on very high traffic mail servers. and, by allowing several instances
> at the same time make possible to profit from SMP.
> (afaik spamd only processes a single mail at the s
I think what would be a lot more interesting is spamd in C or C++. The
major benefit I can think of of going to C is performance (though I'm
not necessarily convinced you'll beat perl for doing text processing),
and if performance is what you care about, you'll be wanting to use
spamd anyway, not
Hi,
> > There are many pros and contras to C version, i won't list these, it's on
> > your fantasy.
>
> I can imagine a few of them, but am curious what you are thinking of as
> the pros and cons.
ok...
pros:
- portability (on unix platforms)
- much better speed (on my test p3 perl version with
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Arpi wrote:
> I'm working on a partial rewrite of SpamAssassin in plain C language, using
> the PCRE library for regexp matching.
> Thanks to the nice ruleset format, it is able to parse and use the .cf files
> without any change. Currently only regexps are parsed and checked
Hi,
I'm working on a partial rewrite of SpamAssassin in plain C language, using
the PCRE library for regexp matching.
Thanks to the nice ruleset format, it is able to parse and use the .cf files
without any change. Currently only regexps are parsed and checked, but i'll
implement the most importa
22 matches
Mail list logo
