Re: [exim] exim_surbl

On 04/12/2007, W B Hacker <wbh@???> wrote:
> Stephen Gran wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 06:53:42PM +0000, W B Hacker said:
> >> Why wait until acl_smtp_data and invoke a perl script to do what Exim can do
> >> with much less workload in the acl_smtp_connect phase?
> >
> > SURBL and URIBL are not what you think they are.
>
> Perhaps not.
>
> Can your tell me how they differ from the same-named ones included in SpamAssassin?

They don't. But exim_surbl provides a more lightweight way of checking
them - and since many sites consider a SURBL or URIBL hit as a binary
result (ie a hit = treat as spam), you can avoid the expense of
running the message through SA.

--
Peter Bowyer
Email: peter@???