So should I open an RFE in bugzilla to request handling of a combined SURBL list in urirhsbl (modulo the later updates of the corrected name multi.surbl.org and starting from .2 not .1)?
Jeff C. __ On Friday, May 14, 2004, 3:24:42 AM, Jeff Chan wrote: > Based on comments received so far, the following is proposed for a > combined SURBL list: > Name: mutli.surbl.org > The sc and ws lists and a phishing list would be combined into a > single, bitmasked SURBL mutli.surbl.org. Bitmasking means that > there will only be one entry per spam URI domain name or IP > address, but that entry will have an IP address that resolves > according to which lists it belongs to: > 1 = comes from sc.surbl.org > 2 = comes from ws.surbl.org (and be.surbl.org) > 4 = comes from phishing list > Where if an entry belongs to one of the lists it will have an > address where the last octet has that value, for example > 127.0.0.4 means it comes from the phishing list and 127.0.0.1 > means it's in the data used in sc.surbl.org. An entry on multiple > lists gets the sum of those list numbers as the last octet, so > 127.0.0.3 means an entry is on both ws.surbl.org and > sc.surbl.org. In this way membership in multiple lists is > encoded into a single response. > Default TTL for the combined list is generally the longest of the > included lists, which is six hours, while individual entries > inherit the shortest TTL which can be 10 minutes for sc data. > That allows individual entries to expire in BIND appropriately to > their data source. > TXT message for each entry is generic, pointing to a page > describing the different lists and their data sources. > All this is still open to discussion, but lets lock in the > bitmasking scheme, unless there are any strong objections, so > that the SA programs can start to be written or modified to use > a combined list. > A combined list would be in addition to the individual lists, > which would continue to exist. > Comments anyone? > Jeff C. Jeff C.
