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
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
>> 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 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
13 matches
Mail list logo
