-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Nigel Frankcom wrote: > On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:16:43 +0100, Emmanuel Lesouef > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> reject_rbl_client sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org, >> reject_rbl_client list.dsbl.org, >> reject_rbl_client rbl-plus.mail-abuse.org, >> reject_rbl_client cbl.abuseat.org, >> reject_rbl_client dnsbl.sorbs.net > > I thought sbl-xbl used cbl as well? Is using them twice a waste of > resource? Yes and no. XBL has some delay until updates are propagated from CBL, so querying XBL first and then CBL gives you two advantages: * You profit from the high reliability and low response times of Spamhaus' DNS setup * After SBL-XBL filtered out the bulk, CBL can kick in to "catch the rest", ie those not yet propagated from CBL to XBL. I use such a setup on my production system where we have an SBL+XBL feed - -- this incurs another delay (CBL -> XBL -> local rsync), so adding the CBL improves the detection rate slightly. - -- Matthias -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFimS4xbHw2nyi/okRAiTPAKDOpNJ2muPuUnAFGatHJVVOTrjpQgCfdLox q5TNsxrmn3yLUCnowM1ZwtM= =KOaZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
