On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 16:57:38 +0200
Henrik K wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 02:28:55PM +0000, RW wrote:
> > On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:27:36 +0100
> > Axb wrote:
> >
> > > Although "unsupported/obsolete" the iXhash plugin still produces
> > > good results.
> >
> > I removed that plugin a few month ago because it reduced scan times
> > from ~14s to ~4s.
> >
> > I've just been looking at it again and it look like iXhash.cf
> > contains some obsolete zones; the website gives only
> > ix.dnsbl.manitu.net and generic.ixhash.net. I commented out the
> > hosteurope.ixhash.ne and ctyme.ixhash.ne rules, and the problem
> > seems to have gone away.
>
> Well, if you care about performance, I recoded iXhash to use async
> lookups and few other enhancements..
>
> http://sa.hege.li/iXhash2.pm
Is it possible to use both zones. If so, would it be:
ixhashdnsbl IXHASH ix.dnsbl.manitu.net. generic.ixhash.net.
...
or would it need separate rules:
ixhashdnsbl IXHASH_M ix.dnsbl.manitu.net.
body IXHASH_M eval:check_ixhash('IXHASH_M')
ixhashdnsbl IXHASH_G generic.ixhash.net.
body IXHASH_G eval:check_ixhash('IXHASH_G')
...
Or is ix.dnsbl.manitu.net the only one worth using?
On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:38:29 +0100
Axb wrote:
> hosteurope.ixhash.ne ?
> ctyme.ixhash.ne ?
>
> or do you mean .net?
Yes. They are truncated in the describe lines in the .cf file, which is
where I pasted them from. They are right in the rules, so that's not the
problem.
