On 2018-02-10 (12:15 MST), Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's a
> reasonable thing to do.
No one has made an argument that would imply this is not reasonable.
> And if you're offering a service, you have responsibilities to your customer
On 02/10/2018 12:15 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's a
reasonable thing to do.
I never meant to imply that it was the reasonable thing to do.
I meant to imply that it is my choice how I run my servers.
And if you're offering a service
But to answer your question, off-hand, I'd say that any TTL under 60s is
=
suspicious and any TTL under 10s is almost certainly intentionally =
abusive.
On 09.02.18 23:11, John Levine wrote:
I hope you're not planning to do much spam filtering.
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Matus UHLAR -
Ok, so I've never used forwarders (actually, that's not strictly true;
I've used them twice, but it was to work around weird issues, and I
felt dirty), but couldn't increasing the TTL cause stupid
configuration issues to become immortal RRs?
I've seen a number of instances where people who *do* fo
In article you write:
>The target, instead of very quickly rejecting the spam because of the =
>lack of a domain or the lack of DNS, instead has to deal with thousands =
>of different IPs.
That's not how spam filters work. They do filtering based on the IP
address sending the spam and maybe the
In article ,
Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 02/09/2018 09:37 AM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > As long as you understand the implications of what you're doing?
>
> I don't think my level of understanding has any impact of my ability to
> override what the zone publisher sets the desired TTL (or any valu
On 2018-02-09 (21:11 MST), John Levine wrote:
>
> In article you write:
>> For the record, the issue is not RBLs or legitimate domains, it is =
>> spammer scum that set super-low DNS because they are shotgunning spam =
>> from a a vast botnet and they want to have maximal impact, so you get a =
But to answer your question, off-hand, I'd say that any TTL under 60s is =
suspicious and any TTL under 10s is almost certainly intentionally =
abusive.
On 09.02.18 23:11, John Levine wrote:
I hope you're not planning to do much spam filtering.
do you have any evidence where enforcing a 5s mi
8 matches
Mail list logo
