On 31 Dec 2010 01:19:16 -0000 John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > >Now obviously, there's a breakpoint at which synchronizing the local > >database from the master becomes cheaper than doing lookups. Right > >now, that's quite high, but it will move lower with IPv6.
> Why do you say that? The number of computers on the net isn't going > to be much bigger with IPv6. They're just spread out in a much larger > address space. It's pretty reasonable to assume that when spammers can abuse having huge address spaces at their disposal, they will. So it would make sense for them to crank up their sending volume and send from multiple addresses, especially if they can determine that some attempts have been rejected by recipients. Ie, if dead::beef fails, it can't hurt to try dead::bef0, etc. [...] > So if you say that everyone has to maintain a mirror to get a BL's > data, you're saying that small clients can't use BLs at all. I'm not saying that at all... why would you think that? Again, to use my favourite example, thousands of tiny sites don't have any problems with maintaining ClamAV signature databases. So why would they have problems maintaining BL/WL data, especially if convenient freshclam-analagous software became available? Regards, David.
