On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
>
> On Jul 28, 2011, at 11:28, Charlie Brady wrote:
>
> >>> I use dnscache on my home network and would like to know why anybody
> >>> decide to move from dnscache.
> >>
> >> Performance,
> >
> > Could you supply some details, please?
>
> Off the
On 7/28/2011 12:09 PM, Chris Lewis wrote:
I'd not use dnscache in corporate/enterprise/high reliability
environments. Unbound is nice and hiccup-free. Bind9 is reasonable
enough. I hear good things about PowerDNS too.
As a FYI, on a machine running qpsmtpd, handling up to 10M emails per
day,
On Jul 28, 2011, at 11:28, Charlie Brady wrote:
>>> I use dnscache on my home network and would like to know why anybody
>>> decide to move from dnscache.
>>
>> Performance,
>
> Could you supply some details, please?
Off the top of my head the two things I'd run into are the outstanding reque
On 7/28/2011 10:51 AM, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
On Jul 27, 2011, at 16:41, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
I use dnscache on my home network and would like to know why anybody
decide to move from dnscache.
Performance, IPv6 support, ease of maintenance (when using dnscache I often end
with subtly di
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Ask Bj?rn Hansen wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2011, at 16:41, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
>
> > I use dnscache on my home network and would like to know why anybody
> > decide to move from dnscache.
>
> Performance,
Could you supply some details, please?
> IPv6 support, ease of maint
On Jul 27, 2011, at 16:41, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
> I use dnscache on my home network and would like to know why anybody
> decide to move from dnscache.
Performance, IPv6 support, ease of maintenance (when using dnscache I often end
with subtly differently patched versions; frustrating). Als
Dear Chris,
On Mit 27.07.2011 10:59, Chris Lewis wrote:
On 7/26/2011 10:41 PM, Jared Johnson wrote:
[snipp]
Now each of our qpsmtpd instances has their own rbldnsd (serving ~700Mb
zone consisting of almost all the DNSBLs we use as one merged zone)
plus the "Unbound" DNS server package. This
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, David Nicol wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Matt Sergeant wrote:
However I'm unlikely to maintain much on Qpsmtpd now that Haraka has taken
off.
Matt.
how about a plugin adapter, so Haraka can use Qpsmtpd plugins or v/v?
That probably implies
either a node.js <-
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> However I'm unlikely to maintain much on Qpsmtpd now that Haraka has taken
> off.
>
> Matt.
how about a plugin adapter, so Haraka can use Qpsmtpd plugins or v/v?
That probably implies
either a node.js <--> perl integration layer, a V8 <--> p
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Jared Johnson wrote:
That sounds like a pretty sweet configuration!
[Note if you are running qpsmtpd-async, as we do, it's not really
possible to route DNS queries differently for DNSBLs versus other DNS
queries qpsmtpd does. ParaDNS doesn't handle paralleled DNS queries
That sounds like a pretty sweet configuration!
> [Note if you are running qpsmtpd-async, as we do, it's not really
> possible to route DNS queries differently for DNSBLs versus other DNS
> queries qpsmtpd does. ParaDNS doesn't handle paralleled DNS queries to
> different servers well.]
when I fi
On 7/26/2011 10:41 PM, Jared Johnson wrote:
We discussed doing this once at my organization and someone astutely
pointed out that considering that this is DNS, the better solution would
really be to run a local caching DNS server, e.g. bind9 and point
resolv.conf to 127.0.0.1 with forwarders to
> I thought about a module which learns from the plugin dnsbl.
>
> Maybe we call it check_known_dnsbl_spammer ;-) and use the module
>
> http://search.cpan.org/~robm/Cache-FastMmap-1.39/lib/Cache/FastMmap.pm
Hi Aleks,
We discussed doing this once at my organization and someone astutely
pointed ou
13 matches
Mail list logo
