-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Matt Kettler wrote: > Comparatively speaking, 6 might be inadequate. I don't know how much of > that scale is really "necessary" for minimal operation, and how much is > just needed for scalability against DDoS attacks. dnswl.org runs on 10 servers(*). Given that a whitelist has a lower DDoS risk than a blacklicst (spammers don't gain from DoSing a whitelist), a lower number seems sufficient for a pure whitelist. Traffic for the list.dnswl.org zone is well above 100 GByte/month, and rising. The dnswl.org zone adds circa 15 GByte/month; rsync is only about 5 GByte/month (all numbers per mirror). With the inclusion of dnswl.org rules into the the SA default ruleset, traffic roughly tripled in a short time. However I have no clue how much of the current traffic can *now* be attributed to these default rules. [Interestingly, we have a noticeable traffic peak around late afternoons central european time. I'm not sure why this happens, as I would have expected a more uniform worldwide / timezone / load distribution.] - -- Matthias (for dnswl.org) (*) Expansion is a priority for the next couple of weeks. So if you have a VMWare, an IP address and some bandwidth to spare... ;-) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFHfL6dxbHw2nyi/okRAtQAAKDJ6DRPJABZ0/Nj952JiSrIMcy/TgCfRVt3 whh7c4lAw66Ii9L7NazXqHs= =SlbP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
