At 11:35 PM -0700 8/30/03, Warren Michelsen wrote:
> looks like about a 4-second delay before looking up the next listed RBLs...
I assume there's a max number of connections so after the first set of four, as each
one finishes a new one will start unless there was a hit.
>So, the question arises: what is the optimum order for the most popular RBL entries?
>I'm sure there are people on this list who have put a lot of thought, and perhaps
>some research and testing, into it.
>
>Which RBLs should be listed early? Which are less productive, but still worthwhile,
>and can be listed later?
Every so often I reorder my lists putting the ones with the most hits at the top.
This will snowball since the next time around those RBL's will have an even better
chance of getting more hits as long as they are working right. This might be a
little simplistic but the only way to get true stats would be if I could have the
RBL's hit but then keep on checking each of the others and I don't know how to do that.
If you were asking for specific stats, see my prior thread titled "Totally
unscientific RBL comparison" or send me a private e-mail. Remove the '2' from my
address or else I might not see it right away.
- Paul
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
