Re: RRL probably not useful for DNS IP blacklists, was Re: New Versions of BIND are available (9.9.4, 9.8.6, and 9.6-ESV-R10)

2013-09-23 Thread Eliezer Croitoru
On 09/20/2013 05:12 PM, Vernon Schryver wrote: The potential RRL problem is when you provide high volume DNSBL service over the open Internet to DNS clients that are not authenticated. However, that is unlikely to be a worry, because providing DNSBL services over the open Internet is dubious

Re: bind-users Digest, Vol 1633, Issue 1

2013-09-23 Thread Harald A. Irmer
ShanyiWan -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20130923/ee963e55/attachment-0001.html -- Message: 2 Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 09:40:05 +0300 From: Eliezer Croitoru elie

Re: RRL probably not useful for DNS IP blacklists, was Re: New Versions of BIND are available (9.9.4, 9.8.6, and 9.6-ESV-R10)

2013-09-23 Thread Vernon Schryver
From: Eliezer Croitoru elie...@ngtech.co.il Major DNSBL providers have years since limited anonymous clients for business or other reasons. For example, I think Spamhaus limits anonymous clients to fewer than 3 queries/second. and I doubt they use RRL in the application level.. I

Re: RRL probably not useful for DNS IP blacklists, was Re: New Versions of BIND are available (9.9.4, 9.8.6, and 9.6-ESV-R10)

2013-09-23 Thread Chris Buxton
On Sep 23, 2013, at 7:59 AM, Vernon Schryver v...@rhyolite.com wrote: From: Eliezer Croitoru elie...@ngtech.co.il I was looking for something like that but I am sure a dynamic DB is needed for the task right? Large DNSBLs are not very dynamic, because they have relatively few changes

Re: RRL probably not useful for DNS IP blacklists, was Re: New Versions of BIND are available (9.9.4, 9.8.6, and 9.6-ESV-R10)

2013-09-23 Thread Simon Forster
On 23 Sep 2013, at 15:59, Vernon Schryver v...@rhyolite.com wrote: From: Eliezer Croitoru elie...@ngtech.co.il Major DNSBL providers have years since limited anonymous clients for business or other reasons. For example, I think Spamhaus limits anonymous clients to fewer than 3

Re: 9.9.4 Bug Fixes - RT #34583

2013-09-23 Thread Chris Buxton
On Sep 21, 2013, at 8:35 AM, Steve Arntzen i...@arntzen.us wrote: Good morning/day/evening. What exactly does beneath mean in the following line from the 9.9.4 bug fixes? Fix forwarding for forward only zones beneath automatic empty zones. [RT #34583] Beneath in this case refers to the

Re: RRL probably not useful for DNS IP blacklists, was Re: New Versions of BIND are available (9.9.4, 9.8.6, and 9.6-ESV-R10)

2013-09-23 Thread Tony Finch
Simon Forster fors...@spamteq.com wrote: As a matter of interest, if one had a DNSBL with 5.5 million entries (i.e. 5.5 million IPs): 1) What needs to be done to rewrite that to a BIND zone? 2) What sort of machine would be required to load that zone? 3) How long would it take to load into

Re: RRL probably not useful for DNS IP blacklists,

2013-09-23 Thread Vernon Schryver
From: Tony Finch d...@dotat.at As a matter of interest, if one had a DNSBL with 5.5 million entries (i.e. 5.5 million IPs): 1) What needs to be done to rewrite that to a BIND zone? 2) What sort of machine would be required to load that zone? 3) How long would it take to load into

Re: RRL probably not useful for DNS IP blacklists, was Re: New Versions of BIND are available (9.9.4, 9.8.6, and 9.6-ESV-R10)

2013-09-23 Thread Simon Forster
On 23 Sep 2013, at 19:24, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote: Simon Forster fors...@spamteq.com wrote: As a matter of interest, if one had a DNSBL with 5.5 million entries (i.e. 5.5 million IPs): 1) What needs to be done to rewrite that to a BIND zone? 2) What sort of machine would be