On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Dallas Engelken wrote: > Filtering the top 0.45% IPs results in 20% fewer queries/second to the > mirrors. I dont see trying to limit excessive bandwidth usage on donated > mirrors as an "obnoxious stance".
The "obnoxious stance" comment is in demanding payment for reducing the load on your servers. All of the other RBLs that I'm aware of (could be wrong) are happy to provide data feeds free of charge. To be perfectly honest with you, prior to the email, I wasn't even aware of uribl, just surbl. It was merely included when we upgraded SA. We have our own local DCC server and local copies of several of the RBLs; it's a win-win, we reduce latency, you reduce bandwidth consumption. It's certainly your right to charge, I'm not denying that. I just don't think spamassassin should be promoting the use of services that ultimately desire to be compensated for what is in reality a very medium volume of queries, and which (I assume) is populated with data that is generated compensation-free by your users. If you gave free data feeds like everybody else, I would applaud you, apologize for being unaware of our abuse of your servers, setup the feed, and thank you for your contribution. When I got your email, I immediately went to your website to setup a data feed and found myself disgusted that you wanted payment, just as I was disgusted with MAPS so many years ago. > We asked you to shut off your queries on 2007-12-27 19:15:09. Nearly 3 months > later and we still saw the same high volume queries from your systems. My apologies, I actually never saw the initial request. I'm not sure what was different about this mailing, or if the first somehow got caught up in the holiday vacation situation. When our spamassassin rules recompile tonight, you'll no longer see the bulk of those requests. > > I really don't care much either way, for me it's a done deal, I'm disabling > > the tests on my mail servers and advising others to do the same. > > I'm just wondering if the community at large is aware of this and has an > > opinion. > > > > Superb. Thats all you had to do in the first place without raising a stink. > > If SA wants to completely remove uribl.com tests because we dont allow the > heavy hitters to query the public mirrors, thats their choice. If you think 500k queries a day is a heavy hitter, you're off your rocker. I suspect most of the heavy hitters have their load distributed among many source IPs...do you aggregate query volume data by cidr block? For instance, if we ran a cacheing nameserver on each of our mailservers, would you have ever noticed us? Andy --- Andy Dills Xecunet, Inc. www.xecu.net 301-682-9972 ---
