On Thursday, January 13, 2005, 1:19:58 AM, Darren Coleman wrote: >> From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> % dig 2.0.0.127.sbl.spamhaus.org a >> >> ; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> 2.0.0.127.sbl.spamhaus.org a >> ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch >> ;; got answer: >> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 65527 >> ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 15, ADDITIONAL: 13 >> ;; QUERY SECTION: >> ;; 2.0.0.127.sbl.spamhaus.org, type = A, class = IN >> >> ;; ANSWER SECTION: >> 2.0.0.127.sbl.spamhaus.org. 2H IN A 127.0.0.2 > Yes, I get that result :) [..] > I presume this is intended behaviour when the dig statement above works. > As it happens I am also seeing URIBL_SBL hits in my spam now so > obviously it is querying the RBL correctly. You should be all set then. The only remaining question is how much mail volume your server is doing. If you're processing more than a hundred thousand messages per day you should probably request rsync access for the RBLs you use. For example: http://www.surbl.org/rsync-signup.html Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
