Re: Minimum TTL?

2018-02-10 Thread @lbutlr
On 2018-02-10 (12:15 MST), Barry Margolin wrote: > > Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's a > reasonable thing to do. No one has made an argument that would imply this is not reasonable. > And if you're offering a service, you have

Re: Minimum TTL?

2018-02-10 Thread Grant Taylor via bind-users
On 02/10/2018 12:15 PM, Barry Margolin wrote: Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's a reasonable thing to do. I never meant to imply that it was the reasonable thing to do. I meant to imply that it is my choice how I run my servers. And if you're offering a

Re: Minimum TTL?

2018-02-10 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
But to answer your question, off-hand, I'd say that any TTL under 60s is = suspicious and any TTL under 10s is almost certainly intentionally = abusive. On 09.02.18 23:11, John Levine wrote: I hope you're not planning to do much spam filtering. On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Matus UHLAR

Re: Minimum TTL?

2018-02-10 Thread Warren Kumari
Ok, so I've never used forwarders (actually, that's not strictly true; I've used them twice, but it was to work around weird issues, and I felt dirty), but couldn't increasing the TTL cause stupid configuration issues to become immortal RRs? I've seen a number of instances where people who *do*

Re: Minimum TTL?

2018-02-10 Thread John Levine
In article you write: >The target, instead of very quickly rejecting the spam because of the = >lack of a domain or the lack of DNS, instead has to deal with thousands = >of different IPs. That's not how spam filters work. They do filtering

Re: Minimum TTL?

2018-02-10 Thread Barry Margolin
In article , Grant Taylor wrote: > On 02/09/2018 09:37 AM, Barry Margolin wrote: > > As long as you understand the implications of what you're doing? > > I don't think my level of understanding has any impact of

Re: Minimum TTL?

2018-02-10 Thread @lbutlr
On 2018-02-09 (21:11 MST), John Levine wrote: > > In article you write: >> For the record, the issue is not RBLs or legitimate domains, it is = >> spammer scum that set super-low DNS because they are shotgunning spam = >> from

Re: Minimum TTL?

2018-02-10 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
But to answer your question, off-hand, I'd say that any TTL under 60s is = suspicious and any TTL under 10s is almost certainly intentionally = abusive. On 09.02.18 23:11, John Levine wrote: I hope you're not planning to do much spam filtering. do you have any evidence where enforcing a 5s