On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 16:10:36 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> Do you have memory for your nameserver limited or not?
No. I simulated a name server with an infinite cache size.
> Does it only expire RR's when they time out?
Yes.
> what logs did you procvess?
The mail log from sendmail.
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 14:39:48 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
And in case of repeating the same IP's (which happens especially with
remote mailservers) the negative cache helps much.
On 07.07.11 09:09, David F. Skoll wrote:
No, it does not. I have run experiments on real mail servers. I'm
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 14:39:48 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 07.07.11 08:26, David F. Skoll wrote:
> >The point is that by definition, you can't have a per-IP
> >negative-cache TTL.
> We can have per-IP positive cache and per-zone negative cache.
That does not help.
> And in case of re
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 11:50:44 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Negative caching can be effective or in this case even
ineffective too, can't it?
On 07.07.11 08:26, David F. Skoll wrote:
The point is that by definition, you can't have a per-IP negative-cache TTL.
We can have per-IP positive
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 11:50:44 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> Negative caching can be effective or in this case even
> ineffective too, can't it?
The point is that by definition, you can't have a per-IP negative-cache TTL.
Regards,
David.
> My experiments on real mail servers show that DNS caching is quite
> ineffective for DNSBLs (at least for typical ones like Spamhaus that
> use a short TTL on the order of 15-30 minutes.)
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:20:18 +0200
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Is the TTL set global or are the TTLs set by
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:20:18 +0200
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > My experiments on real mail servers show that DNS caching is quite
> > ineffective for DNSBLs (at least for typical ones like Spamhaus that
> > use a short TTL on the order of 15-30 minutes.)
> Is the TTL set global or are the TTLs se
Jeff Chan wrote:
> On Monday, July 4, 2011, 3:46:15 AM, Warren Jr. wrote:
>> Hey folks,
>
>>
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/07/spamassassin-why-run-your-own-dns.html
>> I wrote this article about why it can be important to run your own
>> DNS server if you have a busy Spamassassin deployment.
>
>>
On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 12:20 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2011-07-04 09:24:19, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> > My experiments on real mail servers show that DNS caching is quite
> > ineffective for DNSBLs (at least for typical ones like Spamhaus that
> > use a short TTL on the order of 15
Hello David F. Skoll,
Am 2011-07-04 09:24:19, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> My experiments on real mail servers show that DNS caching is quite
> ineffective for DNSBLs (at least for typical ones like Spamhaus that
> use a short TTL on the order of 15-30 minutes.)
Is the TTL set global or are
Hi,
On Tue, 05.07.2011 at 07:18:30 +, Jason Ede
wrote:
> Andreas Schulze [mailto:s...@andreasschulze.de] wrote:
> > - bind (off course)
although I'm sure that it was meant in a different way, "off course"
hits the nail right onto the head, imnsho.
> Are there any figures on the relative
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Schulze [mailto:s...@andreasschulze.de]
> Sent: 04 July 2011 12:11
> To: Warren Togami Jr.
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: SpamTips.org: Why run your own DNS server?
>
> Warren,
>
> > Anyone have an
>> But if you're looking for a DNS cache, I highly recommend unbound.
>> I used to use dnscache but got tired of its limitations (due entirely
>> to it being unchanged since 1998.) My copy of unbound runs about
>> 27M real RAM, 44M virtual, which is pretty modest on my 12G server.
>
>how many q/s
On 2011-07-04 21:26, John Levine wrote:
My experiments on real mail servers show that DNS caching is quite
ineffective for DNSBLs (at least for typical ones like Spamhaus that
use a short TTL on the order of 15-30 minutes.)
That's consistent with what I've seen, although you probably won't be
s
>My experiments on real mail servers show that DNS caching is quite
>ineffective for DNSBLs (at least for typical ones like Spamhaus that
>use a short TTL on the order of 15-30 minutes.)
That's consistent with what I've seen, although you probably won't be
surprised to hear that I have higher hope
On 4-7-2011 20:35, Toni Mueller wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 04.07.2011 at 13:23:42 +0200, Axb wrote:
Well, together with the auth server it creates an "ecosystem" with
some (limited) vendor lock-in capability.
"vendor lock-in" ? be explicit, please.
last I looked PowerDNS highlighted some custom DNS
Hi,
On Mon, 04.07.2011 at 13:23:42 +0200, Axb wrote:
> >Well, together with the auth server it creates an "ecosystem" with
> >some (limited) vendor lock-in capability.
>
> "vendor lock-in" ? be explicit, please.
last I looked PowerDNS highlighted some custom DNS RR types (on the
wire) that wer
On 04.07.11 00:46, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/07/spamassassin-why-run-your-own-dns.html
I wrote this article about why it can be important to run your own
DNS server if you have a busy Spamassassin deployment.
it CAN but it doesn't always have to be.
We provide 6 DNS
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 13:52:00 +0200
Axb wrote:
> BLs generally adjust their negative TTL to get a practical balance
> between query load and positive hits.
> Gaming these settings can become a costly process.
My experiments on real mail servers show that DNS caching is quite
ineffective for DNSB
On 7/4/2011 1:52 AM, Axb wrote:
A small site will never use 400MB of DNS cacheing... don't scare ppl
unnecessarily :)
Larger sites already do local recursion and have the iron to to it.
(other recursors will also use a lot of memory under high-ish load)
It is also possible that pdns-recursor ju
On 7/4/2011 1:52 AM, Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-04 12:46, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
Hey folks,
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/07/spamassassin-why-run-your-own-dns.html
I wrote this article about why it can be important to run your own DNS
server if you have a busy Spamassassin deployment.
Anyone have
On 2011-07-04 12:46, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
Hey folks,
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/07/spamassassin-why-run-your-own-dns.html
I wrote this article about why it can be important to run your own DNS
server if you have a busy Spamassassin deployment.
Anyone have any better tips of an alternate D
On Monday, July 4, 2011, 3:46:15 AM, Warren Jr. wrote:
> Hey folks,
> http://www.spamtips.org/2011/07/spamassassin-why-run-your-own-dns.html
> I wrote this article about why it can be important to run your own DNS
> server if you have a busy Spamassassin deployment.
> Anyone have any better tips
On 2011-07-04 13:15, Toni Mueller wrote:
I don't believe pdns-recursor is guilty of this particular complaint
as it is ONLY a recursor?
Well, together with the auth server it creates an "ecosystem" with
some (limited) vendor lock-in capability.
"vendor lock-in" ? be explicit, please.
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 00:46:15 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/07/spamassassin-why-run-your-own-dns.html
I wrote this article about why it can be important to run your own
DNS server if you have a busy Spamassassin deployment.
okay one asked :)
1: do not add forwar
Hi Warren,
On Mon, 04.07.2011 at 01:03:46 -1000, Warren Togami Jr.
wrote:
> I heard others recommend unbound, but I haven't tried it yet. Is it
> more RAM efficient than other alternatives, and fast?
I haven't specifically conducted tests about its memory efficiency, but
I do use it on severa
Warren,
> Anyone have any better tips of an alternate DNS resolver, or
> configuration options to improve this suggested configuration?
please distinguish between DNS server and recursive+caching resolver.
The HowTo meen the second one...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System#Name_serv
On 7/4/2011 12:58 AM, Toni Mueller wrote:
Hi Warren,
On Mon, 04.07.2011 at 00:46:15 -1000, Warren Togami Jr.
wrote:
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/07/spamassassin-why-run-your-own-dns.html
Anyone have any better tips of an alternate DNS resolver, or
configuration options to improve this sugge
Hi Warren,
On Mon, 04.07.2011 at 00:46:15 -1000, Warren Togami Jr.
wrote:
> http://www.spamtips.org/2011/07/spamassassin-why-run-your-own-dns.html
>
> Anyone have any better tips of an alternate DNS resolver, or
> configuration options to improve this suggested configuration?
while I do agree
Hey folks,
http://www.spamtips.org/2011/07/spamassassin-why-run-your-own-dns.html
I wrote this article about why it can be important to run your own DNS
server if you have a busy Spamassassin deployment.
Anyone have any better tips of an alternate DNS resolver, or
configuration options to imp
30 matches
Mail list logo
