Thank you for this, this is most helpful. Yes, I read the link. On this related note, it appears that mentioning dnsmasq as a non-forwarding caching Nameserver on this page http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CachingNameserver is a mistake. From the dnsmasq documentation <http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/docs/dnsmasq-man.html> :
> Dnsmasq is a DNS query forwarder: it it not capable of recursively > answering arbitrary queries starting from the root servers but forwards > such queries to a fully recursive upstream DNS server which is typically > provided by an ISP As I read it, it means that "non-forwarding dnsmasq" is simply nonsensical. What am I missing? Also, it appears to me that the ISP provider caches not any worse than the local server dns server would cache, so could you please explain, what benefit caching them locally provides over using already set up DNS server at ISP? Even if we imagine that ISP's DNS is non-caching, I can't see an apparent benefit: TTLs on uribl.com is 2 hours, my system may be get 20 emails during this time span or less, probability that some of them come from the same ip is quite low, so benefits of caching look non-existent. Now I'm not a linux person at all less so a system administrator, and I learned about spamassassin just a few days ago, so clearly I'm missing something, could you please fill in the gaps please? -- View this message in context: http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Why-do-I-get-both-URIBL-DBL-SPAM-and-URIBL-BLOCKED-tp109457p109460.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
