On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 12:13:57AM +0300, Juha-Matti Tapio wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 11:11:24AM -0400, John Kelly wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:00:03 +0300, Juha-Matti Tapio > > <jmtapio@verkkotelakka.net> wrote: > > > c) Sorbs lists IP addresses for low TTL values. > > > None of these are true > > Clearly they refuse to delist IPs with low TTL values. Your statement > > is misleading. > > You are confusing listing criteria and delisting criteria. Sorbs does not > specify low TTL as a listing criteria and I have yet to see anyone present > proof of otherwise. And if TTL is not a listing criteria, it therefore is > propably never the sole delisting criteria. http://strugglers.net/~andy/tmp/sorbs-demands-high-ttl-for-delisting.txt This IP space, and many others, are not delisted solely because of their DNS PTR record's TTL. SORBS has no place enforcing arbitrary rules on DNS TTL, and that is why I no longer use it to outright reject email. My users get false positives and then I have to tell them that the ISP of the person sending the mail applied a TTL that is too low in the opinion of SORBS, then I need to explain what DNS TTL is about. And after all that when they ask "Okay so why is that bad?" there really isn't a good answer other than some paranoid stance regarding people changing their RDNS while SORBS looks and then changing it back later (WTF???) I cannot advocate a position I find ridiculous, much less spend a lot of time doing so. -- http://strugglers.net/wiki/Xen_hosting -- A Xen VPS hosting hobby Encrypted mail welcome - keyid 0x604DE5DB
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature