has anybody been bitten, lately by URIBL's .255 case?
Unsure. There have been people reporting that URIBL sometime in the
recent past was returning purposefully wrong answers to queries via
Google's DNS. Is that a 255 case?
However, the reason 255 is being discussed is because we are looking for
the bit that will be returned from the BL that says "query was blocked".
255 cannot be accepted by SA because it ALSO triggers other rules. We
need one bit and likely that will remove all but 1 rule for URIBL in the
dnsbl block notification rules.
seems to me there's a lot of noise which started with DNSWL and is
spreading....
Correct because the SA project needs to implement the policy uniformly
and fairly. If URIBL is considering or doing the same purposefully
wrong answers that DNSWL has been doing, it needs to be strongly
consider for removal from default scoring.
We did not single out DNSWL as much as I truly despise Matthias. Just
kidding Matthias ;-)
afaik, URIBL has a "limit" of 300k queries/day (when it blocked my
trap server) - way more than other BLs
I agree. 300K is a very high ceiling. However, it could be 1k/day for
this conversation.
We are really focused on the issue of "does the BL ever give out
purposefully wrong answers to queries as an over-quota response to get
attention by causing emails to be marked incorrectly?"
Blocking or not responding to queries is OK. Giving purposefully wrong
answers (other than one that we work together to identify as a DNS block
determination bit).
regards,
KAM
