Re: what the heck do i do now?

From: Andrew - Supernews (no email)
Date: Sun Feb 04 2007 - 21:36:10 EST

  • Next message: Mattias Ahnberg: "OFFTOPIC - Dell Latitude laptop charger"

    >>>>> "Warren" == Warren Kumari <> writes:

     Warren> Sure, but if we could all agree that 127.255.255.255 (or
     Warren> something) means that the BL has been shutdown then in the
     Warren> future this sort of issue could be mitigated.

    You don't need to agree on something - it's already possible to apply
    automated checks to a DNSBL that detect all known methods of shutting
    it down.

    Applying these same checks in configuration tools would also prevent
    users specifying things which are not live DNSBLs, thus avoiding a
    lot of excess query load on nameservers that just happen to serve
    domains that have been mistaken for DNSBLs.

    The algorithm is very simple:

      - if 1.0.0.127.dnsbl.example. is not NXDOMAIN, this is a hard failure.
      - if 2.0.0.127.dnsbl.example. is NXDOMAIN or SERVFAIL, or lacks an
        A record, or has an A record which is not 127.x.x.x, then this is a
        soft failure.
      - otherwise the test passes.

    DNSBLs that soft-fail should be removed from use but continue to be
    tested regularly, and at least optionally added back automatically if
    they pass within a reasonable period (days, say) of failing - after
    that they should be treated as hard failures and removed completely.

     Warren> Yes, this doesn't fix Paul's problem (or anyone who setup a
     Warren> blacklist before this is standardized) and there is no way to
     Warren> enforce this, but it is bunch better than not doing
     Warren> anything...

    It has been possible all along, so why aren't people doing it already?

    -- 
    Andrew, Supernews
    http://www.supernews.com
    

  • Next message: Mattias Ahnberg: "OFFTOPIC - Dell Latitude laptop charger"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD