On Mar 31, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
On 2006-03-30 19:31:44 +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
"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).
That's impressive. For our servers it was little more than 5% in
the second half of 2005.
5% is about the right figure for the traditional RBL. There are
other lists that prove far more effective. As an RBL list is
effective at prohibiting a source, other sources are then uncovered.
A greater percentage will be found using the newer types of lists.
These newer lists look beyond just the RBL and approach the 80%
figure that Nick indicates. : )
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg