Hi Guys! This thread was only just brought to our attention, and the thread is now several levels deep and a bit old, so if you can help me out with letting me know what the outstanding issues are, I'd really appreciate it.
As best as I can tell from reading through the thread online, there are two questions: 1. Something to do with our zones not responding (?) and 2. Something which is causing questions regarding the IADB rules, however I can't find what triggered it or the actual question. We did have an issue with our master zone server a few weeks ago, however to the best of my knowledge it was a) resolved quickly, and b) hasn't happened again. We also have several secondaries on line so, at least in theory, any lookups to the IADB should have been serviced as usual. Are folks still seeing issues with that? As for #2, I'm here to answer any questions and to address any concerns you may have. We treasure (seriously) our relationship with SA - we developed the IADB response codes with Craig Hughes *specifically* so that SA could take advantage of them, and the IADB generally, so if there are issues now, we definitely want to know and get them addressed. I should also remind folks, in case institutional memory from back then is no longer here, that we are happy to create any new data response code that would be useful for SA. (For example, the "127.3.100.100 The only email which comes from this IP address is mailing list email, and that mailing list email is entirely confirmed (double) opt-in" data response code was created at the request of another spam filtering/reporting system, and they make a point of looking for it in our zones now.) As you may know, we consider our first duty to be to the *receiving* community (for those who don't know, I came to this by way of being in-house counsel for Paul Vixie and MAPS, so I am seriously anti-spam, and part of the receiving community); but we can't address any issues if they aren't brought to our attention. That just happened, and here I am! :-) Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy (ISIPP) Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Member, Colorado Cyber Committee Member, Elevations Credit Union Member Council Member, Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop On 2017-09-18 08:12, "Kevin A. McGrail" <k...@mcgrail.com> wrote: > On 9/16/2017 4:36 PM, Chris wrote:> > > I'm also seeing issues with ISIPP which is in 20_dnsbl_tests.cf. I've> > > attached the message I sent them as well as their reply. Another issue> > > I noticed with ISIPP is> > >> > > Sep 16 12:09:38 localhost named[1284]: host unreachable resolving> > > 'ns1.ns.isipp.com/A/IN': 67.227.190.38#53> > > Sep 16 12:09:38 localhost named[1284]: host unreachable resolving> > > 'ns2.ns.isipp.com/A/IN': 67.227.190.38#53> > >> > > My network is up> > >> > > chris@localhost:~$ time host isipp.com> > > isipp.com has address 67.227.187.192> > > isipp.com mail is handled by 5 smtp.secureserver.net.> > > isipp.com mail is handled by 0 concerto.isipp.com.> > > isipp.com mail is handled by 10 mailstore1.secureserver.net.> > >> > > real††† 0m0.866s> > > user††† 0m0.008s> > > sys††† 0m0.004s> > > chris@localhost:~$ time host isipp.com> > > isipp.com has address 67.227.187.192> > > isipp.com mail is handled by 0 concerto.isipp.com.> > > isipp.com mail is handled by 10 mailstore1.secureserver.net.> > > isipp.com mail is handled by 5 smtp.secureserver.net.> > >> > > real††† 0m0.010s> > > user††† 0m0.008s> > > sys††† 0m0.000s> > >> > > Problem, or something I shouldn't concern myself about?> > > Good question.† Perhaps another rate-limit issue or they block dynamic IPs.> > > I took this off-list by accident but Chris has low volume and uses a > > Dynamic IP.† I wonder if ISIPP is similar to barracuda in that it should > > be considered for removal from the default rules. Anyone have any feedback?> > > regards,> > KAM> >
