On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:40 PM, wrote:
> I obviously have more testing to do, but I welcome any comments...
>
I don't have any solution to your problem but ... I have seen
something similar on a Debian box running a local BIND server. Repo
is defined as "ftp.debian.org".
apt-get install giv
Recap of config (There's a "New" section below that covers new
data...)
---
Current config:
CentOS 5, running BIND 9.3.6
*** (We updated everything to most recent versions when this was
initially posted, mid April, and it made no difference in the
symptoms.)
i386
Hardware:
P4, 2.8Ghz, 1G mem
listserv.traf...@sloop.net ha scritto:
> Problem:
> Postfix is doing RBL lookups on zen.spamhaus.org.
> Everything goes along groovy - but then lookups start failing.
Just some toughs: you could try to install rbldnsd.i386 from rpmforge repo for
caching rbl lookups
> I certainly suspect a proble
Larry Vaden wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Scott Silva wrote:
>
>> on 4-15-2010 1:36 PM Larry Vaden spake the following:
>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>>>
Larry Vaden wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Ned Slider
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Scott Silva wrote:
> on 4-15-2010 1:36 PM Larry Vaden spake the following:
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>>> Larry Vaden wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> Changing dns to public services such as google or
on 4-15-2010 1:36 PM Larry Vaden spake the following:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> Larry Vaden wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
Changing dns to public services such as google or OpenDNS is not going
to help as DNSBLs like Spamhaus
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> Larry Vaden wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>>> Changing dns to public services such as google or OpenDNS is not going
>>> to help as DNSBLs like Spamhaus will have blocked access by these
>>> services. Otherwise it
On 4/15/2010 3:00 PM, listserv.traf...@sloop.net wrote:
>
>> What happens if you change your resolv.conf to google's dns ?
> I haven't tried this, but from reports, spamhaus.org blocks google's dns. [The
> traffic limits are too high. If they didn't, no one would buy a
> commercial zone transfer li
Larry Vaden wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> Changing dns to public services such as google or OpenDNS is not going
>> to help as DNSBLs like Spamhaus will have blocked access by these
>> services. Otherwise it would be simple to avoid paying for (business)
>> access
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>
> Changing dns to public services such as google or OpenDNS is not going
> to help as DNSBLs like Spamhaus will have blocked access by these
> services. Otherwise it would be simple to avoid paying for (business)
> access to Spamhaus.
Au contra
listserv.traf...@sloop.net wrote:
>> What happens if you change your resolv.conf to google's dns ?
>>
> I haven't tried this, but from reports, spamhaus.org blocks google's dns. [The
> traffic limits are too high. If they didn't, no one would buy a
> commercial zone transfer license...]
>
> So
sys Admin wrote:
> What happens if you change your resolv.conf to google's dns ?
>
>
Changing dns to public services such as google or OpenDNS is not going
to help as DNSBLs like Spamhaus will have blocked access by these
services. Otherwise it would be simple to avoid paying for (business)
a
> What happens if you change your resolv.conf to google's dns ?
I haven't tried this, but from reports, spamhaus.org blocks google's dns. [The
traffic limits are too high. If they didn't, no one would buy a
commercial zone transfer license...]
So, while it's not likely to fix this problem, even i
What happens if you change your resolv.conf to google's dns ?
On 4/15/10, Nataraj wrote:
> listserv.traf...@sloop.net wrote:
>>> Check out the following bug report. I would also look at other bind bug
>>> reports. My sense is that redhat has deviated quite a bite from the ISC
>>> version of bind
listserv.traf...@sloop.net wrote:
>> Check out the following bug report. I would also look at other bind bug
>> reports. My sense is that redhat has deviated quite a bite from the ISC
>> version of bind. In particular I believe that they disabled or otherwise
>> modified the caching behavior back a
>>
> Check out the following bug report. I would also look at other bind bug
> reports. My sense is that redhat has deviated quite a bite from the ISC
> version of bind. In particular I believe that they disabled or otherwise
> modified the caching behavior back about 6-8 months ago when there were
> On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 17:36 -0700, listserv.traf...@sloop.net wrote:
>> --
>> Problem:
>> Postfix is doing RBL lookups on zen.spamhaus.org.
>> Everything goes along groovy - but then lookups start failing.
>>
> Does your network interface show any abnormalities - dropped packets
> etc? I assume
On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 17:36 -0700, listserv.traf...@sloop.net wrote:
> --
> Problem:
> Postfix is doing RBL lookups on zen.spamhaus.org.
> Everything goes along groovy - but then lookups start failing.
>
Does your network interface show any abnormalities - dropped packets
etc? I assume you have no
listserv.traf...@sloop.net wrote:
> My apologies if I'm posting the wrong place, or am asking a common
> question. All my looking so far hasn't turned up anything very useful
> in knowing what to look at, or what to modify.
>
> ---
> CentOS 5, running BIND 9.3.6
> i386
>
> Hardware:
> P4, 2.8Ghz, 1
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:36 PM, wrote:
> First, someone's going to ask - perhaps Zen's blocking you. I don't
> think so. Here's why.
> -We're non-commercial, using the definition set my spamhaus,
> -mail connects TOTAL are well less than 100K a day. (Less than 10K in
> actuality)
> -and thus ha
My apologies if I'm posting the wrong place, or am asking a common
question. All my looking so far hasn't turned up anything very useful
in knowing what to look at, or what to modify.
---
CentOS 5, running BIND 9.3.6
i386
Hardware:
P4, 2.8Ghz, 1G memory
Sata drives - non mirrored etc.
Load is li
21 matches
Mail list logo
