On Wednesday, August 18, 2004, 6:41:28 PM, Justin Mason wrote: > Jason Haar writes:
>> We really need negative caching for DNS lookups. DNS TTLs are great for >> caching *successful* lookups - but failed lookups aren't cached. > We were considering it, since it'd be doable now that we prefork and keep > a spamd process running for a few hundred messages. However, the other > devs were pretty sure that a local caching "named" process would probably > do the trick nicely enough. (me, I'm not quite convinced ;) > So a local caching named won't cache negative lookups? That *could* > be quite an improvement if that's the case... Regular local name servers do cache negative answers AFIAK. A repeated RBL NXDOMAIN response (occurring within the name server's negative caching TTL) should already be served from the cache of local name servers. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
