Scott Truman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You've missed my point. The first priority is to stop spam, network > tests are obviously necessary here. "Unnecessary, inefficient" > traffic is a concern further down the list. On one server its > bandwidth is negligible, but over thousands it would add up.
Yes, but our loading is little different than any MTA-based DNS blacklist implementation. In contrast to some, we also never send a second DNS query. > It seems only logical not to run network tests when the local tests > have done the job. Sure ... only if (a) network tests were not I/O-bound, (b) if network test I/O cannot be done in the background while CPU-bound work was being done, or (c) both. Since (b) is true and because the best way to improve performance is to send out all requests before doing the local tests and collect the results after the local tests are done, the optimization you're proposing isn't an option. The other way to put it is that by the time you know that local tests could have done the job, it's too late. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
