"Nick Nicholas" <Nick(_at_)habeas(_dot_)com> wrote:
It's the latter that I had in mind. What data can be adduced to
demonstrate that we're better off with DNSBLs than without them?
Perhaps something like sharply increased CPU loads would be a useful
data point. Can we point to incidents where server meltdowns occurred
because no DNSBLs were in place?
On my servers, DNSBLs deal with about 80% of ALL email (including internal
email - our mail hub handles everything). Without them we would need
probably 25 machines instead of 4. (I'm multiplying by more than 5
because we don't run internal email through SpamAssassin.)
We do get complaints when the blacklists overstep the mark. For example, I
decided to stop using the MAPS RSS because they don't expire old entries,
and we were getting false positives from address ranges that had been
re-assigned in the four or so years since the original listing. The fact
that we almost never get complaints, but we do get them when there are
problems, indicates to me that our false positive rate is acceptably low.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> http://dotat.at/
DENMARK STRAIT: NORTH OR NORTHEAST 5 TO 7. SNOW SHOWERS. GOOD, BUT MODERATE
OR POOR IN SNOW SHOWERS. LIGHT OR MODERATE ICING, TEMPERATURES MS02 TO MS07.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg