Re: [exim] exim_surbl

On 05/12/2007, Nigel Metheringham
<nigel.metheringham@???> wrote:
>
> 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 :-)

Hopefully the owners of whitelist@??? are slightly more clueful :-)

--
Peter Bowyer
Email: peter@???