Re: dnswl.org contact

> Am 02.03.2018 um 00:55 schrieb Randy Bush : > > anyone have contact with the dnswl.org folk? replied off-list. — Matthias

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

> > Am 14.10.2015 um 18:49 schrieb Christopher Morrow : > > looks like ip-echelon's MX's are: > 67.43.171.100 - 67.43.171.96/27 > 67.43.165.163 - 67.43.165.160/27 > 203.122.134.3 - 122-134-3.dsl.connexus.net.au. ? In or near these ranges, I see 67.43.171.121 (monthly magnitude 5.5) 67.43.165.16

Re: /27 the new /24

> One or more of these things will be the death of IPv4: IPv4 will not die, it will be superseded by something better :) What I have found to be the greatest obstacle to IPv6 adoption is the state of IPv6 support in various types of CPEs / network equipment. The support is mostly OK in higher

Re: Data Center operations mail list?

> The best course here is to completely avoid any contact with the > horribly-mismanaged Amazon cloud operation until such time as those > running it demonstrate a bare minimum of professionalism -- which, Seconded. At dnswl.org , most of Amazon IP space has a pretty bad rep

Re: Spamhaus BGP feed experiences?

At dnswl.org we check our data against the DROP list every once in a while. The overlap of DROP with legitimate sources of SMTP traffic is very, very small: a low single-digit number, and most of them are crappy to start with (so we don’t publish them, but only keep them in o

Re: Team Cymru / Spamhaus

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Jon Lewis wrote: >> We're a little more leery about trying Spamhaus's BGPf service (DROP, >> EDROP >> and BCL, >> >> http://www.spamhaus.org/bgpf/ > > > This is more about stopping spam from entering your network and stopping > compromised hosts on your network f

Re: DMARC -> CERT?

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Christopher Morrow < morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Scott Howard wrote: > > Whilst I don't agree with the way that Yahoo has done this (particularly > > around communication), > > how could they have communicated this better? h

Re: misunderstanding scale

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > It only takes a single entry if you do not store /128s but that /64. Yes, > > RBL lookups do not currently know how to handle this, but there are a > > couple of good proposals around on how to do it. > > Then the spammers will grab /48s in

Re: misunderstanding scale

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > OTOH, a spammer with a single /64, pretty much the absolute minimum IPv6 > block, has more than 18 quintillion addresses and there's not a computer on > the planet with enough memory (or probably not even enough disk space) to > store that bl

Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > Would it make it more unique; if I suggested creation of a new distributed > Cryptocurrency something like 'MAILCoin' to track the memberships in the > club and handle voting out of abusive mail servers: in a distributed > manner, to e

Re: Reverse DNS RFCs and Recommendations

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 8:22 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > Which finally brings me to my questions: > > It seems like the unspoken de facto that mail admins appreciate > > given the IP 203.0.113.15 is > > "203-0-113-15.[type].[static/dynamic].yourdomain.tld". This > > seems perfectly acceptable,

Re: What do people use public suffix for?

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > They'd really like to have a process which is less ad-hoc. For > example, it'd be great if these points were annotated in the DNS > itself, perhaps with a record which points to the corresponding > whois server > Btw., this would simil

Re: What do people use public suffix for?

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:10 PM, John Levine wrote: > You don't have to tell me that it's a gross crock, but it seems to > be a useful one. What do people use it for? Here's what I know of: > At dnswl.org, we use a heuristic (and manual checks) to derive different "levels" of management (ie,

Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Dave Sparro wrote: > What label would you suggest be used for PTR records in unassigned space? > Some fixed string like "unassigned."? This would make it obvious that something is wrong if ever it leaks out. -- Matthias

Re: Gmail and SSL

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Damian Menscher wrote: > While I'm writing, I'll also point out that the Diginotar hack which came > up in this discussion as an example of why CAs can't be trusted was > discovered due to a feature of Google's Chrome browser when a cert was > Similar to http://g

Re: problems with dnswl.org

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > opening tcp connection to rsync2.dnswl.org port 873 > rsync: failed to connect to rsync2.dnswl.org (85.25.63.16): Operation > timed out (60) > rsync error: error in socket IO (code 10) at clientserver.c(122) > [Receiver=3.0.8] > > any other pa

Change of dnswl.org operating model

Hi, As announced earlier, dnswl.org will change it's operating model. "Heavy users" (defined as those doing > 100'000 queries/24 hours on the public nameservers) and vendors of anti-spam products and services will need a paid subscription. We are now ready to implement the model and will graduall

Re: Spamhaus...

Am 21.02.10 10:25, schrieb Michelle Sullivan: > As a matter of interest, who are the other current DNSBL's to do it? dnswl.org currently does not do it, but bandwidth suckers are a pain. The work is considerable: log aggregation, log review, trying to find a responsible for the IPs and followin

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

Mark Andrews schrieb: > I don't see any reason to complain based on those numbers. > It's just a extremely high growth period due to technology > change over bring in new functionality. OTOH, Verizon is not the only provider of smartphone connectivity in the world. Most of them

Re: mail traffic

> Problem? That aint a problem. Just that mccolo got taken down and > half the bots around suddenly stopped. Unfortunately, the bots themselves are still there, and may come back to life in the near future (or be re-infected by the Next Bot Model). I hope that someone already analyzed the bots a