> > people who don't configure it correctly, in a way that is *almost invisible.* > The lower rate limit which they established in March of this year isn't > inherently bad, it just meant that enough people were hitting the limit that > someone bothered opened a bug about it. >
There is none new rule. The limit of 100‘000 per 24 hours has been in place for years. Enforcement of the limit is intentionally „weak“, we only look at new „overusers“ every few weeks. > TL;DR: Rather than using an in-band signal of a special reply value to > queries from blocked users, as do other DNS-Based List operators, DNSWL.org > sends back a "listed high" response to all queries. I was unaware > Not to all queries. It is sent to resolvers who consistently go above the limits, sometimes for months and years after receiving the blocked response. > # DNSWL is a commercial service that requires payment for servers over 100K > queries daily. > The subscriptions to dnswl.org easily covers the infrastructure cost, but not much more. — Matthias, for the dnswl.org project
