-----Original Message----- From: Bill Landry [mailto:billl@pointshare.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 11:04 AM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org; discuss@lists.surbl.org Subject: Re: Feature Request: Whitelist_DNSRBL
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" spamassassin@dostech.ca
Was the whitelist you were referring to really the SURBL
server-side
whitelist?
Yes! But local SURBL whitelists are needed to reduce
traffic and time.
I'd much rather see SURBL respond with 127.0.0.0 with a
really large TTL
for white listed domains. Any sensible setup will run a
local DNS cache
which will take care of the load and time issue.
I agree, and have suggested a whitelist SURBL several times on the SURBL discussion list, but it has always fallen on deaf ears - nary a response. It would be nice if someone would at least respond as to why this is not a reasonable suggestion.
Well we have talked about it and .... didn't come up with a solid answer. The idea would cause more lookups and time for those who don't cache dns. We do have a whitelist that our private research tools do poll. The idea is that if it isn't in SURBL then it is white.
This also puts more work to the already overworked contributors. ;)
--Chris
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Santerre" csanterre@MerchantsOverseas.com
-----Original Message----- From: Bill Landry [mailto:billl@pointshare.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 11:04 AM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org; discuss@lists.surbl.org Subject: Re: Feature Request: Whitelist_DNSRBL
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" spamassassin@dostech.ca
Was the whitelist you were referring to really the SURBL
server-side
whitelist?
Yes! But local SURBL whitelists are needed to reduce
traffic and time.
I'd much rather see SURBL respond with 127.0.0.0 with a
really large TTL
for white listed domains. Any sensible setup will run a
local DNS cache
which will take care of the load and time issue.
I agree, and have suggested a whitelist SURBL several times on the SURBL discussion list, but it has always fallen on deaf ears - nary a response. It would be nice if someone would at least respond as to why this is not a reasonable suggestion.
Well we have talked about it and .... didn't come up with a solid answer. The idea would cause more lookups and time for those who don't cache dns.
We
do have a whitelist that our private research tools do poll. The idea is that if it isn't in SURBL then it is white.
This also puts more work to the already overworked contributors. ;)
Actually, I was thinking of the whitelist that Jeff has already compiled at http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelist-domains.sort (currently over 66,500 whitelisted domains). If you set a long TTL on the query responses, it would certainly cut down on follow-up queries for anyone that is running a caching dns. It would also be a lot less resource intensive then trying to run a local whitelist.cf of over 66,500 whitelisted domains.
Anyway, just a thought...
Bill
On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 8:33:11 AM, Bill Landry wrote:
Actually, I was thinking of the whitelist that Jeff has already compiled at http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelist-domains.sort (currently over 66,500 whitelisted domains). If you set a long TTL on the query responses, it would certainly cut down on follow-up queries for anyone that is running a caching dns. It would also be a lot less resource intensive then trying to run a local whitelist.cf of over 66,500 whitelisted domains.
That list includes a large majority (52 thousand) of geographic domain names, mostly .us ones which will probably never be used in spams. We included them just for completeness and since large sorted lists have almost no performance impact on UNIX joins.
The actual number of non .us whitelisted domains is about 13 thousand.
We mentioned some reasons why these are not as well-suited to DNS lists as the blacklist records are.
Jeff C.
Chris Santerre wrote:
Well we have talked about it and .... didn't come up with a solid answer. The idea would cause more lookups and time for those who don't cache dns. We do have a whitelist that our private research tools do poll. The idea is that if it isn't in SURBL then it is white.
This also puts more work to the already overworked contributors. ;)
want to put me on the round robin list again?
Alex
On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 9:33:46 AM, Alex Broens wrote:
Chris Santerre wrote:
Well we have talked about it and .... didn't come up with a solid answer. The idea would cause more lookups and time for those who don't cache dns. We do have a whitelist that our private research tools do poll. The idea is that if it isn't in SURBL then it is white.
This also puts more work to the already overworked contributors. ;)
want to put me on the round robin list again?
Alex is referring to SURBL public name service delegations. Yes, I can add your name server back if it can take 200k bits per second of traffic.
Let me know if that's ok.
I think Chris and Dallas were referring to something else.
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
Hi!
want to put me on the round robin list again?
Alex is referring to SURBL public name service delegations. Yes, I can add your name server back if it can take 200k bits per second of traffic.
Let me know if that's ok.
I think Chris and Dallas were referring to something else.
Most likely Alex was talking about the submission script thats taking submissions for WS... Thats round robin also :)
Bye, Raymond.
On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 6:05:27 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Hi!
want to put me on the round robin list again?
Alex is referring to SURBL public name service delegations. Yes, I can add your name server back if it can take 200k bits per second of traffic.
Let me know if that's ok.
I think Chris and Dallas were referring to something else.
Most likely Alex was talking about the submission script thats taking submissions for WS... Thats round robin also :)
Oh. I should have made that a question like:
Alex, are you referring to DNS round robin? ;-)
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 8:15:49 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
The idea [of a whitelist DNS list] would cause more lookups and time for those who don't cache dns.
That's another excellent argument. Barring caching, which not all resolvers do, why do a gazillion DNS lookups on yahoo.com, w3.org, etc. when we already know they're whitehats?
Hard coding small, local exclusion lists into uridnsbl_skip_domain and whitelist_spamcop_uri is probably a better solution.
Jeff C.
-
Alex Broens -
Bill Landry -
Chris Santerre -
Jeff Chan -
Raymond Dijkxhoorn