>-----Original Message----- >From: Bill Landry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 11:04 AM >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Feature Request: Whitelist_DNSRBL > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> Was the whitelist you were referring to really the SURBL >server-side >> whitelist? >> > >> > >> > Yes! But local SURBL whitelists are needed to reduce >traffic and time. >> >> >> I'd much rather see SURBL respond with 127.0.0.0 with a >really large TTL >> for white listed domains. Any sensible setup will run a >local DNS cache >> which will take care of the load and time issue. > >I agree, and have suggested a whitelist SURBL several times on >the SURBL >discussion list, but it has always fallen on deaf ears - nary >a response. >It would be nice if someone would at least respond as to why >this is not a >reasonable suggestion.
Well we have talked about it and .... didn't come up with a solid answer. The idea would cause more lookups and time for those who don't cache dns. We do have a whitelist that our private research tools do poll. The idea is that if it isn't in SURBL then it is white. This also puts more work to the already overworked contributors. ;) --Chris
