dsbl.org dying? - SpamAssassin

This is a discussion on dsbl.org dying? - SpamAssassin ; dsbl.org are having problems. it would be nice if people who use it disable it, at least temporarily....

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: dsbl.org dying?

  1. dsbl.org dying?

    dsbl.org are having problems. it would be nice if people who use it
    disable it, at least temporarily.


  2. Re: dsbl.org dying?


  3. Re: dsbl.org dying?


  4. Re: dsbl.org dying?


  5. Re: dsbl.org dying?

    Hi!

    > dsbl.org are having problems. it would be nice if people who use it disable
    > it, at least temporarily.


    We had errors in our monitoring system also due to this last night. The
    test point was invalid. (2.0.0.127).

    But i could not reach the site either so...
    Most likely Ian will respond to this also.

    Bye,
    Raymond.


  6. Re: dsbl.org dying?


    mouss writes:
    > Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
    > > Hi!
    > >
    > >> dsbl.org are having problems. it would be nice if people who use it
    > >> disable it, at least temporarily.

    > >
    > > We had errors in our monitoring system also due to this last night.
    > > The test point was invalid. (2.0.0.127).
    > >
    > > But i could not reach the site either so...
    > > Most likely Ian will respond to this also.

    >
    > they have a hardware problem. People who can help them are encouraged
    > to. Others should stop queries.


    have you got a reference for that? all dsbl.org says is "Since the
    removal mechanism is offline now, the zone files have been temporarily
    emptied." Nothing about stopping querying.

    --j.


  7. Re: dsbl.org dying?


    On May 21, 2008, at 10:01 AM, mouss wrote:

    > dsbl.org are having problems. it would be nice if people who use it
    > disable it, at least temporarily.
    >
    >



    I asked about this on the spamtools list on the 12th to deafening
    silence.

    On that day, if you were to look at their status page, http://dsbl.org/nsstatus
    , you would have seen half of their DNS primaries listed as broken.
    Today I see "page not found" with a generic drupal error message. Not
    looking promising if you ask me.

    Time to stop using it, as far as I am concerned.


  8. Re: dsbl.org dying?

    On Wed, 21 May 2008 at 14:26 -0400, vivek@khera.org confabulated:

    >
    > On May 21, 2008, at 10:01 AM, mouss wrote:
    >
    >> dsbl.org are having problems. it would be nice if people who use it disable
    >> it, at least temporarily.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > I asked about this on the spamtools list on the 12th to deafening silence.
    >
    > On that day, if you were to look at their status page,
    > http://dsbl.org/nsstatus, you would have seen half of their DNS primaries
    > listed as broken. Today I see "page not found" with a generic drupal error
    > message. Not looking promising if you ask me.
    >
    > Time to stop using it, as far as I am concerned.


    I stopped using the list a few months ago. Rejections based on the list
    was at ~0.06% of the total number of RBL rejections. The figures were ~3.7
    million total RBL rejections to ~2,500 dsbl.org rejections. It my eyes,
    the list was not worth keeping around when the server(s) are handling over
    seven(7) million messages per day.


  9. RE: dsbl.org dying?



    > From: mouss
    >
    > http://www.dnsbl.com/
    >


    I have never paid attention to it so... questions..

    Was dsbl.org widely used?

    In general, is it considered a major and necessary dnsbl tool for the war
    against spam?

    Does anyone have any idea how much sustained bandwidth in and out that it
    took to run the main dsbl.org host?

    Just wondering if it might be worth throwing an some cold spare commercial
    server hardware we have laying around at it...

    - rh


  10. Re: dsbl.org dying?


    Robert - elists writes:
    > > From: mouss
    > >
    > > http://www.dnsbl.com/
    > >

    >
    > I have never paid attention to it so... questions..
    >
    > Was dsbl.org widely used?
    >
    > In general, is it considered a major and necessary dnsbl tool for the war
    > against spam?
    >
    > Does anyone have any idea how much sustained bandwidth in and out that it
    > took to run the main dsbl.org host?
    >
    > Just wondering if it might be worth throwing an some cold spare commercial
    > server hardware we have laying around at it...


    I would suggest that'd be a great idea, if they're interested in using it.
    Here's my take on dsbl nowadays.

    Going by
    http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20080...IN_DSBL/detail , it
    appears that it's still quite worthwhile: 6.18% of spam hit with 0.01% of
    nonspam, for 99.8% effectiveness.

    It's also good at hitting low-scoring spam if you look at the score-map;
    the peak is at a score of 4 SpamAssassin points.

    The overlaps with other rules are interesting, too:

    OVERLAP WITH FULL RULES:
    overlap spam: 83% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit RAZOR2_CHECK; 6% of RAZOR2_CHECK hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL
    overlap spam: 83% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit RCVD_IN_PBL; 7% of RCVD_IN_PBL hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL
    overlap spam: 83% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit URIBL_BLACK; 6% of URIBL_BLACK hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL
    overlap spam: 81% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100; 6% of RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL
    overlap spam: 76% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100; 6% of RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL
    overlap spam: 75% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit URIBL_JP_SURBL; 6% of URIBL_JP_SURBL hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL
    overlap spam: 66% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit HTML_MESSAGE; 6% of HTML_MESSAGE hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL
    overlap spam: 62% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET; 6% of RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL
    overlap spam: 61% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit RCVD_IN_XBL; 6% of RCVD_IN_XBL hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL
    overlap spam: 59% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit URIBL_OB_SURBL; 6% of URIBL_OB_SURBL hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL
    overlap spam: 58% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL; 9% of RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL
    overlap spam: 58% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit URIBL_SC_SURBL; 6% of URIBL_SC_SURBL hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL
    overlap spam: 52% of RCVD_IN_DSBL hits also hit RDNS_DYNAMIC; 7% of RDNS_DYNAMIC hits also hit RCVD_IN_DSBL

    So it's definitely providing useful data for SpamAssassin.

    --j.


+ Reply to Thread