>> But if you're looking for a DNS cache, I highly recommend unbound.
>> I used to use dnscache but got tired of its limitations (due entirely
>> to it being unchanged since 1998.) My copy of unbound runs about
>> 27M real RAM, 44M virtual, which is pretty modest on my 12G server.
>
>how many q/s
On 2011-07-04 21:26, John Levine wrote:
My experiments on real mail servers show that DNS caching is quite
ineffective for DNSBLs (at least for typical ones like Spamhaus that
use a short TTL on the order of 15-30 minutes.)
That's consistent with what I've seen, although you probably won't be
s
>My experiments on real mail servers show that DNS caching is quite
>ineffective for DNSBLs (at least for typical ones like Spamhaus that
>use a short TTL on the order of 15-30 minutes.)
That's consistent with what I've seen, although you probably won't be
surprised to hear that I have higher hope
On 4-7-2011 20:35, Toni Mueller wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 04.07.2011 at 13:23:42 +0200, Axb wrote:
Well, together with the auth server it creates an "ecosystem" with
some (limited) vendor lock-in capability.
"vendor lock-in" ? be explicit, please.
last I looked PowerDNS highlighted some custom DNS
Hi,
On Mon, 04.07.2011 at 13:23:42 +0200, Axb wrote:
> >Well, together with the auth server it creates an "ecosystem" with
> >some (limited) vendor lock-in capability.
>
> "vendor lock-in" ? be explicit, please.
last I looked PowerDNS highlighted some custom DNS RR types (on the
wire) that wer
The default spam threshold, and the one that all of the generated scores
are targeted at, is 5.0 - you already seem to be running at an elevated
score, so I wouldn't see any issues with dropping your tag score back to
the default of 5.0
I think many people run with tag at 5.0 and discard at 10.0
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Lars Jørgensen wrote:
We still get quite a bit of spam through and instead of fiddling with
scores, I was thinking about lowering the threshold. Currently tag is at
6.2 and kill at 6.9. Would it be unwise to lower these? What thresholds
are other people on this list using?
Currently I have it at 4.8
Quoting Lars Jørgensen :
Hi,
We still get quite a bit of spam through and instead of fiddling
with scores, I was thinking about lowering the threshold. Currently
tag is at 6.2 and kill at 6.9. Would it be unwise to lower these?
What thresholds are other people
Hi,
We still get quite a bit of spam through and instead of fiddling with scores, I
was thinking about lowering the threshold. Currently tag is at 6.2 and kill at
6.9. Would it be unwise to lower these? What thresholds are other people on
this list using?
--
Lars
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 14:50:12 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
reject yahoo.com senders that are NOT dkim signed
The message has a From: from GoogleGroups... and in the E-Mail is
the
E-Mail of the Group-Owner and the Groupname
is there 2 dkim signers so ?
did both pass ?
On 04.07.11 00:46, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/07/spamassassin-why-run-your-own-dns.html
I wrote this article about why it can be important to run your own
DNS server if you have a busy Spamassassin deployment.
it CAN but it doesn't always have to be.
We provide 6 DNS
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 13:52:00 +0200
Axb wrote:
> BLs generally adjust their negative TTL to get a practical balance
> between query load and positive hits.
> Gaming these settings can become a costly process.
My experiments on real mail servers show that DNS caching is quite
ineffective for DNSB
Hello Benny Pedersen,
Am 2011-07-03 18:15:46, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> reject yahoo.com senders that are NOT dkim signed
The message has a From: from GoogleGroups... and in the E-Mail is the
E-Mail of the Group-Owner and the Groupname
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michel
On 7/4/2011 1:52 AM, Axb wrote:
A small site will never use 400MB of DNS cacheing... don't scare ppl
unnecessarily :)
Larger sites already do local recursion and have the iron to to it.
(other recursors will also use a lot of memory under high-ish load)
It is also possible that pdns-recursor ju
On 7/4/2011 1:52 AM, Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-04 12:46, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
Hey folks,
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/07/spamassassin-why-run-your-own-dns.html
I wrote this article about why it can be important to run your own DNS
server if you have a busy Spamassassin deployment.
Anyone have
On 2011-07-04 12:46, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
Hey folks,
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/07/spamassassin-why-run-your-own-dns.html
I wrote this article about why it can be important to run your own DNS
server if you have a busy Spamassassin deployment.
Anyone have any better tips of an alternate D
On Monday, July 4, 2011, 3:46:15 AM, Warren Jr. wrote:
> Hey folks,
> http://www.spamtips.org/2011/07/spamassassin-why-run-your-own-dns.html
> I wrote this article about why it can be important to run your own DNS
> server if you have a busy Spamassassin deployment.
> Anyone have any better tips
On 2011-07-04 13:15, Toni Mueller wrote:
I don't believe pdns-recursor is guilty of this particular complaint
as it is ONLY a recursor?
Well, together with the auth server it creates an "ecosystem" with
some (limited) vendor lock-in capability.
"vendor lock-in" ? be explicit, please.
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 00:46:15 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/07/spamassassin-why-run-your-own-dns.html
I wrote this article about why it can be important to run your own
DNS server if you have a busy Spamassassin deployment.
okay one asked :)
1: do not add forwar
Hi Warren,
On Mon, 04.07.2011 at 01:03:46 -1000, Warren Togami Jr.
wrote:
> I heard others recommend unbound, but I haven't tried it yet. Is it
> more RAM efficient than other alternatives, and fast?
I haven't specifically conducted tests about its memory efficiency, but
I do use it on severa
Warren,
> Anyone have any better tips of an alternate DNS resolver, or
> configuration options to improve this suggested configuration?
please distinguish between DNS server and recursive+caching resolver.
The HowTo meen the second one...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System#Name_serv
On 7/4/2011 12:58 AM, Toni Mueller wrote:
Hi Warren,
On Mon, 04.07.2011 at 00:46:15 -1000, Warren Togami Jr.
wrote:
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/07/spamassassin-why-run-your-own-dns.html
Anyone have any better tips of an alternate DNS resolver, or
configuration options to improve this sugge
Hi Warren,
On Mon, 04.07.2011 at 00:46:15 -1000, Warren Togami Jr.
wrote:
> http://www.spamtips.org/2011/07/spamassassin-why-run-your-own-dns.html
>
> Anyone have any better tips of an alternate DNS resolver, or
> configuration options to improve this suggested configuration?
while I do agree
Hey folks,
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/07/spamassassin-why-run-your-own-dns.html
I wrote this article about why it can be important to run your own DNS
server if you have a busy Spamassassin deployment.
Anyone have any better tips of an alternate DNS resolver, or
configuration options to imp
Hi Yves,
On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 10:06:17AM +0200, Yves Goergen wrote:
> >> Doesn't seem to work. It's a false positive again. And Botnet recognises
> >> the incoming IPv6 address as some IPv4 address and reports that one.
> >
> > That doesn't look right - unless your munging has really messed it
25 matches
Mail list logo
