On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 22:01:44 +0100 Karsten Bräckelmann <guent...@rudersport.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 15:11 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote: > > Is there much to set up? sa-update already has a --channel > > argument. It seems to me all you need to do is put new DNSBLs in a > > testing channel. > New, let alone worthwhile, DNSBLs don't just pop up like that. That's not really the point... I was trying to make the point that having a separate channel for somewhat-experimental rules or rules that might have a large performance impact might be a good idea. A new RBL is (IMO) simply one example of seomthing not quite safe enough for the main sa-update channel. Regards, David.
