DNSBL -Bset:URL mode

Kostik koc@fax.ru
Wed Nov 3 16:14:34 UTC 2010


Vernon Schryver wrote:
> It sounds as if you want to override a DNSBL.
> I do not really understand that goal, because I think it involves
> the fundamental problem with third party blacklists.  Using a third
> party or outside blacklist means that you are delegating decisions
> about which mail you will receive to outsiders.  Using an outside
> DNSBL amounts to letting outsiders censor your mail.  I think you
> should not worry about entries in the outside blacklist with which
> you know you disagree, but entries that you do not know about.

Yes, all so as you say. But there are situations when you need fast
overwrite DNSBL that would fix the customer problem. What would then slow
to solve the problem with third party blacklists. The process of solving
blacklisting problems with some DNSBL providers is not fast.

In the majority of the MTA I can override a DNSBL-ed IP via whitelist but I
can not do this with DNSBL-ed body URL. That is why I asked this question.

> Regardless of my skepticism, 
Vernon, thanks for the information. I'll try to test it.

A few more questions:

1. Now the response from DCC in the case of a positive response from DNSBL
is: "Body=many Fuz1=many Fuz2=many".  May be possible to somehow
distinguish "many" as millions of targets from "many" as blacklisted?  Or
as a set weight for the any type of blacklists. For example:

300    substitute helo localhost # count one letter weighing 300

-B set:weight=300 - sets the DNS blacklist weight

For what would the DCC-client can use different scripts for different
situations. What would distinguish a truly bulk-mailing from the
blacklisted sender. IMHO, now these different causes marked as the same value.

2. Questions about dccifd's param: -t type,[log-thold,]rej-thold
Now I personally do not lack the ability to specify multiple rej-thold.

My example:
rej-thold=1000 - rejected in any case
presumably-rej-thold=500  - reject the condition with other filters
log-thold=100  - log messgae

Appears as a more flexible configuration solution with fewer false
positives, I think so.

Vernon, where am I wrong? :)


More information about the DCC mailing list

Contact vjs@rhyolite.com by mail or use the form.