My experiments on real mail servers show that DNS caching is quite
ineffective for DNSBLs (at least for typical ones like Spamhaus that
use a short TTL on the order of 15-30 minutes.)
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:20:18 +0200
Michelle Konzack linux4miche...@tamay-dogan.net wrote:
Is the TTL set
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 11:50:44 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
Negative caching can be effective or in this case even
ineffective too, can't it?
The point is that by definition, you can't have a per-IP negative-cache TTL.
Regards,
David.
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 11:50:44 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
Negative caching can be effective or in this case even
ineffective too, can't it?
On 07.07.11 08:26, David F. Skoll wrote:
The point is that by definition, you can't have a per-IP negative-cache TTL.
We can
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 14:39:48 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
On 07.07.11 08:26, David F. Skoll wrote:
The point is that by definition, you can't have a per-IP
negative-cache TTL.
We can have per-IP positive cache and per-zone negative cache.
That does not help.
And in
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 14:39:48 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
And in case of repeating the same IP's (which happens especially with
remote mailservers) the negative cache helps much.
On 07.07.11 09:09, David F. Skoll wrote:
No, it does not. I have run experiments on real
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 16:10:36 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
Do you have memory for your nameserver limited or not?
No. I simulated a name server with an infinite cache size.
Does it only expire RR's when they time out?
Yes.
what logs did you procvess?
The mail log
Hello David F. Skoll,
Am 2011-07-04 09:24:19, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
My experiments on real mail servers show that DNS caching is quite
ineffective for DNSBLs (at least for typical ones like Spamhaus that
use a short TTL on the order of 15-30 minutes.)
Is the TTL set global or are
On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 12:20 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2011-07-04 09:24:19, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
My experiments on real mail servers show that DNS caching is quite
ineffective for DNSBLs (at least for typical ones like Spamhaus that
use a short TTL on the order of 15-30
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:20:18 +0200
Michelle Konzack linux4miche...@tamay-dogan.net wrote:
My experiments on real mail servers show that DNS caching is quite
ineffective for DNSBLs (at least for typical ones like Spamhaus that
use a short TTL on the order of 15-30 minutes.)
Is the TTL set
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 13:52:00 +0200
Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
BLs generally adjust their negative TTL to get a practical balance
between query load and positive hits.
Gaming these settings can become a costly process.
My experiments on real mail servers show that DNS caching is quite
My experiments on real mail servers show that DNS caching is quite
ineffective for DNSBLs (at least for typical ones like Spamhaus that
use a short TTL on the order of 15-30 minutes.)
That's consistent with what I've seen, although you probably won't be
surprised to hear that I have higher hopes
On 2011-07-04 21:26, John Levine wrote:
My experiments on real mail servers show that DNS caching is quite
ineffective for DNSBLs (at least for typical ones like Spamhaus that
use a short TTL on the order of 15-30 minutes.)
That's consistent with what I've seen, although you probably won't be
But if you're looking for a DNS cache, I highly recommend unbound.
I used to use dnscache but got tired of its limitations (due entirely
to it being unchanged since 1998.) My copy of unbound runs about
27M real RAM, 44M virtual, which is pretty modest on my 12G server.
how many q/s is that
13 matches
Mail list logo
