[SURBL-Discuss] RFC: Combined SURBL list details, phishing list
jeffc at surbl.org
Sat May 22 16:21:54 CEST 2004
On Saturday, May 22, 2004, 8:30:56 AM, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Jeff Chan <jeffc at surbl.org> writes:
>> So should I open an RFE in bugzilla to request handling of a
>> combined SURBL list in urirhsbl (modulo the later updates of the
>> corrected name multi.surbl.org and starting from .2 not .1)?
> Why starting at .2 instead of .1? Don't you want to use all of the
> bits available?
Someone said that 127.0.0.1 in an RBL would cause general mail
delivery problems, but I believe that might only apply to an
RBL applied to message headers in an MTA, which SURBLs aren't.
OPM uses the .1 bit, but it does it in the larger context of
127.1.0.x not 127.0.0.X, where .1 could perhaps run into the
I suppose we could start with the 2,4,8 bits and expand back
down to .1 if we feel it's safe later. Does that sound ok?
>>> Default TTL for the combined list is generally the longest of the
>>> included lists, which is six hours, while individual entries
>>> inherit the shortest TTL which can be 10 minutes for sc data.
>>> That allows individual entries to expire in BIND appropriately to
>>> their data source.
> Shouldn't the TTL be the shortest of the included lists?
Yes, individual entries would get the shortest TTL if it
appears on multiple lists.
More information about the Discuss