Jason Haar writes: > McDonald, Dan wrote: > > No, it boils down to the attitude in your e-mail - "Why didn't the > > SpamAssassin benefactors do their job better". I for one am impressed > > with their willingness to provide such a useful piece of software, and > > maintain it. But most of them have real jobs, and don't spend every > > waking moment trolling the webpages of obscure rbl'slooking for notices > > that things are borked. > > > > > > ...and I bet there are still commercial anti-spam products using > dsbl.org because they haven't figured it out either :-) > > Also, dsbl.org was returning "OK" DNS records for every request, so > having some process that "checks" that each RBL SA uses was still > working wouldn't have detected a fault - unless it starts flagging > errors because dsbl.org wasn't catching anything. The decision how to > make an RBL server act *on failure* is pretty much up to the owner.
yep -- there is a proposed standard, but it's still in draft status: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-04.txt list.dsbl.org even still has a working entry for 127.0.0.2 (the test entry): : jm 298...; dig 2.0.0.127.list.dsbl.org. ; <<>> DiG 9.4.1-P1.1 <<>> 2.0.0.127.list.dsbl.org. ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 34851 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 6, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;2.0.0.127.list.dsbl.org. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: 2.0.0.127.list.dsbl.org. 21600 IN A 127.0.0.2 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: list.dsbl.org. 259199 IN NS i.ns.dsbl.org. list.dsbl.org. 259199 IN NS g.ns.dsbl.org. list.dsbl.org. 259199 IN NS d.ns.dsbl.org. list.dsbl.org. 259199 IN NS c.ns.dsbl.org. list.dsbl.org. 259199 IN NS h.ns.dsbl.org. list.dsbl.org. 259199 IN NS f.ns.dsbl.org. ;; Query time: 638 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) ;; WHEN: Mon Sep 29 09:31:03 2008 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 156 --j.
