On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 12:15 +0100, Matthias Leisi wrote:
> 2011/3/20 Karsten Bräckelmann <[email protected]>:
>
> > Thus, any reporting to DNSWL even would have been counter-productive,
> > actually accusing (and possibly downgrading) a host, that is listed in
> > DNSWL MED for a reason.
>
> There is no "accusation" in the dnswl.org setup. Changes are done
> manually; erroneous setups/notifications can be detected and removed
> (and, in fact, there are cases where this has happened in the past).
Good to know.
> > As you highlight in bold on your own site hosting the plugin currently,
> > having the internal and trusted networks correct is important. Even more
> > important for reporting. I guess this just stresses this point.
>
> internal and trusted networks are important in any case, if one wants
> to achieve good hit rates with SA.
Of course, full ACK. (And the first sentence states exactly that.)
This part was about the referenced thread, which (yet again) turned out
not to show real demand [1] for DNSWL abuse reporting, but was due to
missing forwarders in the user's trusted networks. Honestly, I prefer it
that way. ;)
[1] Which is a good sign! Strong demand for abuse reporting would mean,
there are too many bad listings. The lower the demand, the higher
the quality of DNSWL.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
