On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 14:21 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote: > >> Jul 1 07:38:46 munged #14781: query: 1.2.3.4.dnsbl.sorbs.net IN A + > >> Oh, and look: dnsbl.sorbs.net > >> So it seems that the demise of sorbs will add latency if their servers > >> stop answering... > > On 01.07.09 08:08, Charles Gregory wrote: > > ...which leads back to my original question, > > Will the developers issue an sa-update to remove the sorbs test > > if sorbs is not kept alive? > > I think the answer is YES since they did that for other obsolete nework > lists...
But for the paranoid will changing 50_scores.cf from; score RCVD_IN_SORBS_BLOCK 0 # n=1 n=2 n=3 score RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 0 1.615 0 0.877 # n=0 n=2 score RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP 0 0.001 0 0.001 # n=0 n=2 score RCVD_IN_SORBS_MISC 0 0.001 0 0.353 # n=0 n=2 score RCVD_IN_SORBS_SMTP 0 # n=0 n=1 n=2 n=3 score RCVD_IN_SORBS_SOCKS 0 0.182 0 0.801 # n=0 n=2 score RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB 0 1.117 0 0.619 # n=0 n=2 score RCVD_IN_SORBS_ZOMBIE 0 # n=0 n=1 n=2 n=3 TO score RCVD_IN_SORBS_BLOCK 0 score RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 0 score RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP 0 score RCVD_IN_SORBS_MISC 0 score RCVD_IN_SORBS_SMTP 0 score RCVD_IN_SORBS_SOCKS 0 score RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB 0 score RCVD_IN_SORBS_ZOMBIE 0 Stop the 'cost' of the lookup?
