Discuss January 2007

discuss@lists.surbl.org

6 participants
8 discussions

List of URL redirectors and Perl code to parse them?
by Kelly Jones 16 Jan '07

16 Jan '07

I know that rd.yahoo.com (for example) is a URL redirector that spammers use to get around SURBL. I also know that if I see a URL like rd.yahoo.com/?http://foo.bar.com, I should actually lookup bar.com.multi.surbl.org. Not all redirectors are this simple: some allow MIME-encoding or %-encoding of the target URL, others use different characters to separate the target URL from the redirector, etc. Is there a fairly complete list of URL redirectors I could use, along with code (ideally Perl code) that converts/de-obfuscates "redirector URL" to "target URL"? -- We're just a Bunch Of Regular Guys, a collective group that's trying to understand and assimilate technology. We feel that resistance to new ideas and technology is unwise and ultimately futile.

3 5

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Why is multi's rsync file so large?
by Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems) 11 Jan '07

11 Jan '07

> You can easily strip it out the text field with sed, awk, cut, > perl, grep, etc. Remove the text before you load the zone into > rbldnsd, for example as a filter in your rsync cron job (scheduler). Thanks Jeff! I'm looking into this now! Rob McEwen PowerView Systems rob(a)PowerViewSystems.com

1 0

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Local Caching Name Server
by Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems) 11 Jan '07

11 Jan '07

I recommend TreeWalk. Upon installation, it defaults to a caching name server. SEE: http://ntcanuck.com/ Rob McEwen PowerView Systems rob(a)PowerViewSystems.com -----Original message----- From: Jeff Chan jeffc(a)surbl.org Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 03:10:35 -0500 To: Max Yang onmywayup(a)hotmail.com Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Local Caching Name Server > On Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 10:12:32 PM, Max Yang wrote: > > Hi > > > I want to set up a local caching name server, in a Windows XP Pro box > > How could I do it? > > Max > > I found this using google: > > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/c24621675.mspx > > Jeff C. > -- > Don't harm innocent bystanders. > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org > http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >

1 0

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Local Caching Name Server
by Jeff Chan 11 Jan '07

11 Jan '07

On Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 11:04:54 PM, Max Yang wrote: > I don't think that it's an answer for my question OK maybe you want to run rbldnsd under Windows? Fortunately there is now a Windows port: http://www.itefix.no/wrbldnsd/ Jeff C. -- Don't harm innocent bystanders.

1 0

Local Caching Name Server
by Max Yang 11 Jan '07

11 Jan '07

Hi I want to set up a local caching name server, in a Windows XP Pro box How could I do it? Max _________________________________________________________________ 聰明搜尋和瀏覽網路的免費工具列 — Windows Live 搜尋工具列 http://toolbar.live.com/

2 1

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Why is multi's rsync file so large?
by Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems) 11 Jan '07

11 Jan '07

Raymond Dijkxhoorn said: > In a era where you talk about gigabytes ram? Talking about this only costs > more ;) eh eh ... Excellent point. And I apologize in advance that this has now veered away from SURBL. (originally, I mistakenly thought this file size bloat might have been an SURBL problem... but it turns out there is NOT really any technical problems) ...but while we are "here"... On my server, I now have a large combination of various rsync subscriptions to various RBLs and DNSBLs that I use in my RBLDNSD. The problem is that my RBLDNSD program now uses a whopping 500MB of RAM. (again, not SURBL's fault... this is a combination of many different lists) So far, that isn't enough RAM to cause problems... but I noticed some sluggishness on my server today and, it turns out that sometimes, when RBLDNSD is "refreshing" its data, it re-builds an entire extra copy of the data in memory, along side the original copy. And this rebuilding can sometimes take several minutes to complete. Apparently, when done, it kills the old copy and start using the new copy. (again... I don't know why it has to rebuild the whole thing... but, then again, I don't know a whole lot about the inner programming of RBLDNSD) When this gigabyte of RAM is being used, I actually see a marked performance decline on my 2GB or Ram server. I know that one could argue that I ought to get more ram for my server... but I think instead I'll program a utility to periodically strip all these comments out of the records and point RBLDNSD to the stripped down versions. I'd be curious as to what the RBLDNSD performance and memory usage ends up being! Also, **getting back to SURBL** ...if you were to offer a "multi" file with comments stripped out, wouldn't this save bandwidth and rsync server resources if folks used that instead of the current offering? Rob McEwen PowerView Systems rob(a)PowerViewSystems.com (478) 475-9032

2 1

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Why is multi's rsync file so large?
by Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems) 11 Jan '07

11 Jan '07

>Just look inside the file and you will see? Since multi used shared lists >each comment line is added for each host seperately and not like the >seperate lists one comment field for all. OK. That makes sense... but I have a follow-up question. Does rbldnsd take up more memory by including that comment as the equivalent of a "text record" for DNS lookups that might attempt such a lookup against rbldnsd? If so, I'm thinking that, as beneficial as this might be in some scenarios, it sure probably uses a whole lot of extra ram on the server hosting the rbldnsd, correct? Rob McEwen PowerView Systems rob(a)PowerViewSystems.com (478) 475-9032

3 2

Why is multi's rsync file so large?
by Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems) 10 Jan '07

10 Jan '07

Why is multi's rsync file so large? Am I doing something wrong with my rsycn? I'm thinking that multi should be, at most, the sum of the parts of the other lists... In fact, it should really probably should be **smaller** than the sum of its parts because of MUCH overlapping data getting consolidated in multi. 01/10/2007 02:03 PM 8,883 ab.surbl.org.rbldnsd 12/23/2006 11:53 AM 101,506 be.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/10/2007 02:12 PM 5,760,311 jp.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/10/2007 02:19 PM 75,027,410 multi.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/10/2007 02:11 PM 6,826,763 ob.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/10/2007 01:48 PM 330,910 ph.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/10/2007 02:11 PM 1,435,961 sc.surbl.org.rbldnsd 07/09/2006 10:44 PM 0 sc2.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/10/2007 01:03 PM 5,905,033 ws.surbl.org.rbldnsd 01/08/2007 03:44 AM 810 xs.surbl.org.rbldnsd 10 File(s) 95,397,587 bytes 0 Dir(s) 105,311,490,048 bytes free ...and some of these lists are no longer used in multi (or never were to begin with). Given the size of the component parts, shouldn't the multi file be somewhere around 10-20 MBs? Rob McEwen PowerView Systems rob(a)PowerViewSystems.com

3 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss January 2007