Scott at ncs.co.nz
Thu May 13 23:47:37 CEST 2004
> > On Wed, 12 May 2004 16:02:33 -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
> > > 2. Another question would be the name of the combined
> list. Since
> > > there would be three or more lists, someone had suggested a name
> > > of "all" before. That sounds good to me unless there are other
> > > suggestions.
> > This could potentially lead to confusion if you
> subsequently add another
> > list not included in the "all" for some reason. That may
> seem unlikely
> > now, but who knows? How about "multi"?
> How about surbl.surbl.org? Being the primary rbl, this kinda
> makes sense :)
> Also on the other points about how to respond - I suggest the
> different IP
> per list as being smartest the octet based response is too
> This only leaves the question on how do we handle multiple listings :)
I'll put my hand up for the bit masked approach:
-it would require less traffic, yeah? If so, then that's gotta be good for everyone. Possibly less load on the DNS servers.
-I'm not sure what Dave means by too 'non specific', both methods achieve the desired results, which is all we really care about. The smarts lie in the code, it doesn't really matter if it is humanly 'harder' to read. You write a rule...it works...you forget whether you entered '2' or 127.0.0.2 as the value for the BigEvil list match some 5 minutes later - I don't need to remember it for an exam, and I hardly ever do manual lookups of URI's myself - the coding is much more efficient :)
-The SA programmers would spit out the new code required whilst blindfolded I would imagine...it sounds like they are just waiting to see what is required
As for the name, something like 'multi' seems good to me.
Keep up the good work as the existing lists are working very well.
More information about the Discuss