spamassassin-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yet Another Ninja <>
Subject Re: Count of uridnsbl skip list domains?
Date Wed, 05 Jan 2011 23:09:40 GMT
On 2011-01-05 23:51, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Yet Another Ninja<>wrote:
>> On 2011-01-05 23:18, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>>>> This made me realize that the URI skip list we have in
>>>> <>  could be improved to avoid lots of useless
>>>> lookups. The old skip list had not been updated for so long, that
>>>> twitter and facebook among others were not listed. I have already
>>>> requested an updated skip list from SURBL.
>>>> Would anyone object to expanding the current list of 200 skip domains
>>>> to maybe 500? I suspect this will only benefit us to avoid many
>>>> useless queries.
>>> +1 from me.
>> -1
>> 1. This list imposes a restriction on ppl who may run local URI lists and
>> SA provides no unwhitelist_uridnsbl_skip_domain to bypass the default
>> uridnsbl_skip_domain entries.
>> This was discussed ages ago.
> Do you advocate that we change nothing?  The current list is lacking obvious
> domains like facebook, twitter and many others.  By your logic we should
> entirely remove the existing list as it is restricting the local admins.

Yes, if it were up to me, except for a dozen domains, I'd remove it.

> However they would never need this option.  The very nature of this list is
> it is domains that are so common that there is no reason they will ever be
> blacklisted.  I asked SURBL to verify that this old 200 list is still
> whitelisted, and they confirmed.

The nature of the list was to save SURBL queries, for the days when 
SURBL was the only uri BL and had few mirrors, users were on a 128kb 
pipe and SA was more or less the only app doing SURBL queries (via 

> The existing rules have an arbitrary line drawn based upon very old data.
> Certainly it needs improvement.  But how do we draw a new line?

>> 2. Expanding it only increases memory use, no speed benefit.
>> The query cost is minimal as most of the proposed domains will already be
>> cached close to the SA instance.
>> in SA 3.4 SVN code we have whitelisting of URIs for ppl who want to avoid
>> queries.
> What are you referring to specifically?

follow the changes in the plugin.

>> I assume Warren doesn't have insight on query traffic affecting either
>> SURBL or URIBL or any other URI BL so his opinion is only based on his gut
>> feeeling.
> I had a gut feeling, but I needed to verify with statistics.  My
> investigation into URI_SKIPPED_* revealed that we were doing a great many
> useless DNS queries because our skip list is so old.

These queries are *not* at all useless. Query counts are used for 
statistics and reputation.

View raw message