Is it accurate to say that a filter in DECLUDE Pro using REVDNS is more efficient and runs faster
than a filter using BODY?
Yes, it is (simply because the reverse DNS entry is much shorter than the body of the E-mail, so there is less searching to do).
My standard procedure was to add a BODY filter that contains the domain of a link found in the spam
messages that make it through other tests. This makes sure that they will be caught next time. I've
noticed though that a surprising number of these domains that are found in the body of the spam are
also the reverse DNS of the message sender. Am I better off filtering the REVDNS instead of the
BODY?
The reverse DNS filter would be quite a bit quicker. Choosing which to use, however, would depend a lot on the volume of mail on your system and whether or not you currently are low on resources (or expect to be soon). For example, if you only process 5,000 E-mails/day, a filter with many BODY entries probably wouldn't be a problem.
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers.
Declude Virus: Catches known viruses and is the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection.
Find out what you've been missing: Ask about our free 30-day evaluation.
--- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
--- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
