On Donnerstag 01 Oktober 2009 Marc Perkel wrote:
> I guess that if HOSTKARMA were included in the default build then I
> will need more mirrors to handle the load.
If that is wanted, I could talk to ISPs for hosting such DNS here in
Austria. After all, we are all getting advantages from this, and
SM wrote:
Hi Marc,
At 09:32 30-09-2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
I have a lot of mighty servers set up ad have servers at 4 locations.
I have 50mb bought and using about 30 of it now. I am not sure what
it takes to support a default SA inclusion. Does anyone know if what
I described sounds like it
Hi Marc,
At 09:32 30-09-2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
I have a lot of mighty servers set up ad have servers at 4
locations. I have 50mb bought and using about 30 of it now. I am not
sure what it takes to support a default SA inclusion. Does anyone
know if what I described sounds like it is enough?
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 9/30/2009 10:25 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
I sincerly hope people realize its a serious thing, and take this mail
to improove things and setups. And please dont include lists that are
not up to the task yet).
This may be of interest..
http://www.uribl.com/mirror
Nobody has yet proposed HOSTKARMA to become enabled by default. I am
only interested at the moment in testing how good it is in masschecks.
I would like to similarly add other DNSBL's that I haven't tried before
like spameatingmonkey or intercept to the masschecks. If you look
around online
On 9/30/2009 10:25 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Hi!
I have a lot of mighty servers set up ad have servers at 4 locations. I
have 50mb bought and using about 30 of it now. I am not sure what it
takes to support a default SA inclusion. Does anyone know if what I
described sounds like it is enoug
Hi!
I have a lot of mighty servers set up ad have servers at 4 locations. I
have 50mb bought and using about 30 of it now. I am not sure what it
takes to support a default SA inclusion. Does anyone know if what I
described sounds like it is enough?
You personally run all mirrors for DNS lookup
On 09/30/2009 12:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
I have a lot of mighty servers set up ad have servers at 4 locations. I
have 50mb bought and using about 30 of it now. I am not sure what it
takes to support a default SA inclusion. Does anyone know if what I
described sounds like it is enough?
You pe
LuKreme wrote:
On 29-Sep-2009, at 23:41, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
been following Warren Togami's aggressive lobbying for adding RBLs to
SA's defaults, and I have some questions:
- is it wise to add yet even more lookups to BLs and slow down SA's
already huge amount of DNS lookups.
Slow d
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
been following Warren Togami's aggressive lobbying for adding RBLs to
SA's defaults, and I have some questions:
- is it wise to add yet even more lookups to BLs and slow down SA's
already huge amount of DNS lookups.
- is the BL in question (which ever it may be) pr
On 29-Sep-2009, at 23:41, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
been following Warren Togami's aggressive lobbying for adding RBLs
to SA's defaults, and I have some questions:
- is it wise to add yet even more lookups to BLs and slow down SA's
already huge amount of DNS lookups.
Slow down? DNS lookups
On 09/30/2009 01:41 AM, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
been following Warren Togami's aggressive lobbying for adding RBLs to
SA's defaults, and I have some questions:
- is it wise to add yet even more lookups to BLs and slow down SA's
already huge amount of DNS lookups.
- is the BL in question (which
been following Warren Togami's aggressive lobbying for adding RBLs to
SA's defaults, and I have some questions:
- is it wise to add yet even more lookups to BLs and slow down SA's
already huge amount of DNS lookups.
- is the BL in question (which ever it may be) prepared for sustaining
the g
13 matches
Mail list logo
