Re: bind-users Digest, Vol 1633, Issue 1

2013-09-23 Thread Harald A. Irmer
al/src/bind-9.9.4/bin' make: *** [subdirs] Error 1 ShanyiWan -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20130923/ee963e55/attachment-0001.html> -- Message: 2 Dat

Re: RRL probably not useful for DNS IP blacklists, was Re: New Versions of BIND are available (9.9.4, 9.8.6, and 9.6-ESV-R10)

2013-09-23 Thread Vernon Schryver
> From: Eliezer Croitoru > > Major DNSBL providers have years since limited anonymous clients for > > business or other reasons. For example, I think Spamhaus limits > > anonymous clients to fewer than 3 queries/second. > and I doubt they use RRL in the application level.. > I assume they limi

Re: BIND 9.9.4 compile error

2013-09-23 Thread Carl Byington
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 12:03 +0800, ShanyiWan wrote: > [root@localhost bind-9.9.4]# uname -a > Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.18-274.el5PAE #1 SMP Fri Jul 22 > 05:34:36 EDT 2011 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux > [root@localhost bind-9.9.4]# lsb_release -a >

Re: RRL probably not useful for DNS IP blacklists, was Re: New Versions of BIND are available (9.9.4, 9.8.6, and 9.6-ESV-R10)

2013-09-23 Thread Chris Buxton
On Sep 23, 2013, at 7:59 AM, Vernon Schryver wrote: > From: Eliezer Croitoru > >> I was looking for something like that but I am sure a dynamic DB is >> needed for the task right? > > Large DNSBLs are not very dynamic, because they have relatively few > changes per day. From another perspect

Re: RRL probably not useful for DNS IP blacklists, was Re: New Versions of BIND are available (9.9.4, 9.8.6, and 9.6-ESV-R10)

2013-09-23 Thread Simon Forster
On 23 Sep 2013, at 15:59, Vernon Schryver wrote: >> From: Eliezer Croitoru > >>> Major DNSBL providers have years since limited anonymous clients for >>> business or other reasons. For example, I think Spamhaus limits >>> anonymous clients to fewer than 3 queries/second. > >> and I doubt the

Re: 9.9.4 Bug Fixes - RT #34583

2013-09-23 Thread Chris Buxton
On Sep 21, 2013, at 8:35 AM, Steve Arntzen wrote: > Good morning/day/evening. > > What exactly does "beneath" mean in the following line from the 9.9.4 > bug fixes? > > "Fix forwarding for forward only "zones" beneath automatic empty zones. > [RT #34583]" "Beneath" in this case refers to the

Re: RRL probably not useful for DNS IP blacklists, was Re: New Versions of BIND are available (9.9.4, 9.8.6, and 9.6-ESV-R10)

2013-09-23 Thread Tony Finch
Simon Forster wrote: > > As a matter of interest, if one had a DNSBL with 5.5 million entries > (i.e. 5.5 million IPs): > > 1) What needs to be done to rewrite that to a BIND zone? > 2) What sort of machine would be required to load that zone? > 3) How long would it take to load into BIND? I did

Re: RRL probably not useful for DNS IP blacklists,

2013-09-23 Thread Vernon Schryver
> From: Tony Finch > > As a matter of interest, if one had a DNSBL with 5.5 million entries > > (i.e. 5.5 million IPs): > > > > 1) What needs to be done to rewrite that to a BIND zone? > > 2) What sort of machine would be required to load that zone? > > 3) How long would it take to load into BIND

Re: RRL probably not useful for DNS IP blacklists, was Re: New Versions of BIND are available (9.9.4, 9.8.6, and 9.6-ESV-R10)

2013-09-23 Thread Simon Forster
On 23 Sep 2013, at 19:24, Tony Finch wrote: > Simon Forster wrote: >> >> As a matter of interest, if one had a DNSBL with 5.5 million entries >> (i.e. 5.5 million IPs): >> >> 1) What needs to be done to rewrite that to a BIND zone? >> 2) What sort of machine would be required to load that zon

Re: RRL probably not useful for DNS IP blacklists,

2013-09-23 Thread Simon Forster
On 23 Sep 2013, at 20:21, Vernon Schryver wrote: >> From: Tony Finch > >>> As a matter of interest, if one had a DNSBL with 5.5 million entries >>> (i.e. 5.5 million IPs): >>> >>> 1) What needs to be done to rewrite that to a BIND zone? >>> 2) What sort of machine would be required to load th