On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Adam Katz wrote:
> But your very next topic is contrary to that philosophy...
>
> > BTW notice that the Google data is multi-valued in the TYPE field.
> > rather than a simple enumeration of that data into an address it
> > is better to turn it into a bit-mask, as then multiple values can
> > be represented (and queried) in a single address/operation.
> >
> > EG: A == 127.0.0.2
> > B == 127.0.0.4
> > C == 127.0.0.8
> > D == 127.0.0.16
> >
> > thus AB == 127.0.0.6
> > AC == 127.0.0.10
> >
> > etc.
>
> I was just following the model used by all other DNSBL/URIBLs. Round
> robin A records for each letter. To quote somebody you hold near and
> dear: it "makes it easier to deploy into an address filter/blocker in
> your smtp-MTA ..."
Have you followed the development of the SURBL service? They explicitly
switched to the bit-mask format to reduce DNS load.
--
Dave Funk University of Iowa
<dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering
319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
