On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 01:41:56PM +0100, Riaan Kok wrote:
> On 01/10/2007, Robert Felber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 11:47:50AM +0100, Riaan Kok wrote:
> > > Fair enough, about default intentions, but the default operation of
> > > policyd-weight does not adhere to this. As low scores are more likely
> > to be
> > > good and high scores are more likely to be bad, most of your false
> > positives
> > > will sit in the score range just above the REJECTLEVEL.. And by
> > default,
> > > everything above REJECTLEVEL and below DEFER_LEVEL gets deferred
> >
> > Not everything but clients whose log-line match DEFER_STRING. Which is
> > SPAMCOP
> > (a temporarily issue) and BOGUS_MX (a testing safety).
>
>
> ok, whoops, my misinterpretation then: it was not very clear to me from the
> .conf's notes that DEFER_LEVEL and DEFER_STRING are related.
>
>
> I'd still be interested if you or anybody have a rough idea what difference
> policyd-weight's cache makes on a system where PW already uses a caching DNS
> server on localhost..
Negative answeres reach their time to life rather quickly. Also this
overrules RRs with a short TTL.
In addition: 1 unix socket lookup should be quicker than ~ 15 DNS lookups.
> especially because the latest patch at Version
> 0.1.14beta-10 disables the PW cache for whomever wants to use 421's as
> their
> primary go-away action.
>
> thanks,
> Riaan
--
Robert Felber (PGP: 896CF30B)
Munich, Germany
____________________________________________________________
Policyd-weight Mailinglist - http://www.policyd-weight.org/
