Bill Landry wrote:
>> From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> 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.
It doesn't cause more lookups for anyone. A local white list file would reduces lookups at the expense of process size (and time if the white list is very large).
Besides, if someone doesn't want to take the 1-5 minutes it takes to setup a local DNS cache they're probably not too interested in saving time anyway.
>> 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. ;)
How so? The lookup code is already compatible as is, it's just a matter of adding the records to each of the SURBL zones... from the already existing data files. That'd take some effort, but I can't imagine it would require anything more than trivial changes... although I've been wrong before.
> Actually, I was thinking of the whitelist that Jeff has already
> compiled at http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelist-domains.sort
> (currently over 66,500 whitelisted domains). If you set a long TTL on > the query responses, it would certainly cut down on follow-up queries
> for anyone that is running a caching dns. It would also be a lot less
> resource intensive then trying to run a local whitelist.cf of over
> 66,500 whitelisted domains.
Ditto. Even if someone isn't running a caching name server, it's highly unlikely that their ISP isn't.
Daryl
