Per Jessen wrote:
>> Since such ranges are usually not as trustworthy as /32s of >> well-respected mailserver operators, dnswl.org lists such ranges with >> a score of "none"; for all practical reasons, this should translate >> into "do not greylist, since there is most likely a legitimate >> mailserver at the other end who will retry anyway". > > This sounds like a pretty good idea, but judging by the size of the > rbldnsd file, it's not very popular? Only 4317 entries. There is definitely room for growth ;-) dnswl.org data grows through three methods: 1) Company/organisation/individual/... mail administrators telling us about their outgoing mailservers: http://www.dnswl.org/request.shtml 2) Importing/joining whitelists of trusted(!) sources. Currently, this includes Swinog, ABUSES[1], and a financial services company. 3) dnswl.org administrators finding "good" mailservers by themselves (eg by looking at incoming log files, user feedback etc) You are all welcome to help! dnswl.org heavily relies on the collaborative effort -- instead of everybody maintaining their own lists, we can as well join forces :) As to the popularity (see http://www.dnswl.org/mrtg/): There are currently DNS requests from more than 330 distinct /24s (which is roughly equal to distinct sites using dnswl.org data). We have detailled usage logs/stats from 4 out of 7 DNS servers for the list.dnswl.org zone. These 4 servers handle an average of above 15'000 queries/minute. That's both not very impressive, but I expect usage to grow considerably as soon as SpamAssassin 3.2 is released (currently in RC1 status), which will include dnswl.org-based rules by default. -- Matthias [1] http://www.rediris.es/abuses/eswl/en/ _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
