YES! If you use ws.surbl.org, remove bigevil.cf. You are just doubling up on the same thing. The more dynamic style bigevil file that has been talked about has not been started yet.
**Hijack** If anyone has any experience with Great Plains, contact me off list. I'm looking for feedback on it. Uptights here are thinking about going with it. I've never dealt with it. But it is Microsoft, so.......... :) --Chris (Hi-NRG monkey today!) >-----Original Message----- >From: Matthias Keller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 10:19 AM >To: Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail) >Subject: Re: [RD] BIGEVIL the big one, just went live! > > >Hi Chris > >Chris Santerre wrote: > >>No that is correct. Bigevil got 10x bigger. I am worried abuot larger >>systems being able to handle it. I'm suggesting people use >surbl.org if they >>can. It is much faster, better, more inclusive, sexy, and smells like >>strawberries. >> >>I've got some ideas to get Bigevil down in size, but nothing >that will make >>a huge dent. >> >>surbl.org is the way to go. If you can't do net tests, rsync >it and do it >>locally. >> >> >> >Hi Chris > >I'm still a bit confused... I'm using those surbl lists for several >weeks now (sc, ws, ob, ab) and I'm running bigevil.cf ... Is that too >much now? >Should I just leave bigevil.cf and just use the surbls? > >Thanks for the advice > >Matt >
