On Friday, January 14, 2005, 1:00:04 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: >> One idea I had to fix this is that SA not use the SURBL whitelist for 1 >> in 10 queries and that those be directed to a different zone. However, >> that would be somewhat counterproductive in terms of DNS caching and I'm >> not sure how happy Jeff would be about the idea.
> Please dont, this wont scale at all, people running their own copy's of > the RBL's wont be happy with this. >> Another way would be to not use the exclusion list for certain periods >> of time if you could select just those times for generating volume >> data. A bit too hacky. >> >> Another way to fix the problem would be to rank the domains with some >> other source of volume data (not SURBL-related) such as looking at a DNS >> cache at a large ISP. > We allready do these things, we monitor traffic on some of the SURBL > servers and have pretty ok stats available of what the 'top domains' are. Hi Raymond, Not everyone may have been included in an earlier discussion. Since SpamAssassin is whitelisting a top 125 of domains and not checking them, those 125 tend to be underrepresented in the DNS queries. Daniel was interested in finding a more representative sample of the whitehat domains to feed back into the process to revise the 125. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
