14 Feb
2005
14 Feb
'05
10:13 p.m.
On Monday, February 14, 2005, 11:59:04 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
Theo Van Dinter writes:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 01:43:35PM -0500, Chris Santerre wrote:
Oh I agree. I don't know what is causing it, but I know it must be throwing off the reported FP rate. Although proably for all the URIRBLs. I'd love to get a monthly report from DQ on his rates. But I know he is busy.
All our mass-check results are available via anonymous rsync. Feel free to generate some statistics. ;)
This could be tested quite easily, if anyone has the tuits...
- do a network mass-check of the SURBL rules.
- restart named, in case it's a named-cache issue (unlikely)
- do another with exactly the same corpus.
- diff the logs.
Assuming the test platform we happen to use gets the problem.
Does anyone have enough info to make a report to the Net::DNS folks?
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."