[SURBL-Discuss] Re: RFC: Add "$DATASET dnset @" directive to SURBL rbldnsd zone files?

Rick Macdougall rickm at nougen.com
Wed Apr 28 00:31:13 CEST 2004


Jeff Chan wrote:

> Dallas Engleken of SARE has suggested that we add a
> dataset directive to our rbldnsd zone files:
>>Can we please add a $DATASET definition to rbldnsd zone files for sc,ws,
>>and be?
>>Ie.. On the 3rd line after $NS and $SOA,  add a line labeled,
>>$DATASET dnset @
>>It will not break anything currently set up, but it will give those of
>>use that use the 'combined' type with multi files in rbldnsd (called via
>>uribl.surbl.org:combined:sc,be,ws)  to merge ws, sc, and be together to
>>create a single query. 
> Does anyone have any comments on this, good, bad or otherwise?
> Do other RBLs do it?  Is it safe?
> Here's the man page entry:  :-)

I'm all for that and I'd love to see the $SOA and $NS lines removed 
completely from the rbldnsd files.

There is no need for them and they tend to screw up people who are 
running their own rbldnsd local rbl's because of the $NS entries.

Example, I run ws.spa.aei.ca, from the ws.surbl.org dataset.  The first 
query will work correctly, but all subsequent queries will fail because 
the $NS records will point to hosts that do not host ws.spa.aei.ca.

If you really want high volume mail servers to rsync the data and use 
their own local rbldnsd servers, you may want to rethink using $SOA and 
$NS in the rbldnsd files.

Yes, I know I can do it using ws.surbl.org and setting ws.surbl.org to 
my own IP but it's kludgey and and hack.  Maybe I don't want to share my 
name servers with others (or in my case I'm not allowed to) so my hack 
to get it working is open for abuse.

Just my $0.02.



More information about the Discuss mailing list