Re: [exim] exim_surbl

Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Nigel Metheringham
Date:  
CC: exim users
Subject: Re: [exim] exim_surbl

On 4 Dec 2007, at 20:25, Peter Bowyer wrote:

> 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.


I guess reporting potential new URLs to add to the list by mail may
not work well then :-)

    Nigel.


--
[ Nigel Metheringham           Nigel.Metheringham@??? ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]