On 6/12/2010 7:09 AM, Andy Dills wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 2010-06-12 15:20, Andy Dills wrote:
300,000 queries per day...per server? per CIDR? What is the delimiter?
Because there is certainly no single IP generating 300,000 queries per day.
That is probably your problem... use a central DNS resolver and your query
count will instantly decrease
I bet you're querying from:
216.127.136.200 dns02.xecu.net
216.127.136.247 mail-out07.xecu.net
216.127.136.242 mail-out02.xecu.net
216.127.136.246 mail-out06.xecu.net
216.127.136.196 mg6.xecu.net
216.127.136.241 mail-out01.xecu.net
216.127.136.245 mail-out05.xecu.net
216.127.136.243 mail-out03.xecu.net
216.127.136.244 mail-out04.xecu.net
Those and a few others.
That's why I'm asking how the limits are designed. In the past I had
problems a certain other blacklist wanting money. We were using a central
resolver. Their thresholds were based on queries per IP, not network.
Using a central resolver put us over their threshold. Distributing out to
the individual servers put us under their threshold. I pointed out the
silliness of this, as it actually increased overall traffic, but they
weren't interested in my opinion, just my money. I would prefer to just
rsync the data, resolve it locally and save everybody the hassle. But
nooooo, that costs even more! Because remember, this isn't about defraying
costs (reasonable), this is about generating revenue (reasonable, but not
for a default-enabled option in free software).
Andy, grow up.
While it would be great if every open source/free project out there had
a sugar daddy, not all do. I can't speak for either this company you
were snookering or for Spamhaus as to what their cash flow is but
somebody is paying the bill for a machine, somewhere, in each of those
orgs, and those orgs are doing the best they can to recoup their costs.
I can't see as how the CEO of Spamhaus is making out like the CEO
of your typical public company, so knock it off.
There is nothing wrong with a for-profit organization running an
open source division and making sales calls into users of the products
of that division. This is a legitimate business model, one that
IMHO gives far more value to the community than some company like
Microsoft, which is almost 100% closed source, and has a long history
of using code and standards developed by the free community when
it suits their purpose. Microsoft used the BSD TCP/IP networking
stack in their code and never contributed a spec of code back into
the BSD community, nor have they contributed any usable code to any
open source community except that which requires the users to use
their products. Do you want all software producing organizations
to be like that?
You can simply politely tell the salesperson making the call that
your not interested and be done with it. You might also consider
that it costs Spamhaus money to pay the salary of that salesperson
so they have an incentive NOT to contact users that they have a good
idea won't buy their stuff.
I really just wish the various policies of the pseudo-free blacklists were
all well-documented, so that sites can evaluate how best to conform, or if
not, how to disable queries.
This is IMHO something that YOU could do, yourself, with a few hours of
time. You could then contribute this documentation back to the
SpamAssassin maintainers for inclusion into SA.
But then again, if it's well documented, they don't get a chance to
generate sales leads!
Incorrect, actually it HELPS them, because ANY press at all, good or
bad, is good advertising.
This thread you started as a matter of fact is probably going to
result in a few more sales to Spamhaus.
I would guess this, Andy, if you sent the transcript of this thread
to Xecunet, Inc.'s salesmanager, I would guess he or she would set you
straight.
Ted
Andy
---
Andy Dills
Xecunet, Inc.
www.xecu.net
301-682-9972
---
