From: Matthew Sullivan (no email)
Date: Thu Nov 03 2005 - 18:04:46 EST
mouss wrote:
> Carl Fink a écrit :
>
>> Which SORBS? For instance, are you suggesting that
>> dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net is
>> too aggressive?
>>
>>
> according to www.dnsstuff.com (look at the end of a lookup page),
> sorbs-duhl [dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net] have a process that doesn't match
> their policy: they apparently list IPs that don't meet the listing
> criteria.
Actually that's there because Scott Perry (the owner of that page) and I
have a disagreement. SORBS has a listing and delisting policy that is
published, Scott Perry can't/won't fit himself into the delisting rules
(he has/had generic DNS with short TTLs in the middle of a verified
dynamic pool and no SWIP indicating that it was assigned to him), and
for that reason I refused to delist him - I told him that he should set
non generic rDNS, or rDNS indicating static assignment with TTLs of at
least 43200 seconds or get SWIP'd - that note has been on his page since
the day I refused to delist him.
> More generally, I know of no dul list that won't list "innocents".
> detecting a dynamic IP isn't feasible. you can use some tests, but
> these won't detect all dynamic hosts, and they will hit innocents (the
> old "change your isp" doesn't count here).
Depends - the SORBS DUHL has strict list and strict delist policies and
(outside of errors - human ones) doesn't have many issues with statics
being listed as dynamics. It is a full time job for 3 staff keeping up
with network renumberings and reallocations and from time to time we get
behind, however we always catch up.
Regards,
Mat
|
|
|