Hello
Am 23.09.2016 um 22:10 schrieb Lindsay Haisley:
On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 15:28 -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
As much as I love BIND (no, seriously, I do) it's very hard to recommend
it as the first choice for a simple recursive resolver.
Setting up bind as a "simple recursive resolver" is simplicity itself.
acl goodclients {
1.2.3.0/24;
4.5.6.0/24;
127.0.0.1;
etc....
};
options {
......
recursion yes;
allow-query { goodclients; };
etc...
};
I did it this way as I found it in somesones blog to configure a caching
dns-server for mailserver with bind.
When testing it by "dig google.de @127.0.0.1" the second call gets a
query time of 0 msec. So bind9 works on my system.
And as described in http://uribl.com/about.shtml#abuse
the results for my mailserver are
host -tA 2.0.0.127.multi.uribl.com
2.0.0.127.multi.uribl.com has address 127.0.0.14
host -tA blocked.uribl.com
Host blocked.uribl.com not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
In one of the last spam mails the x-spam status is
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=11.663 tag=2 tag2=6.31 kill=6.31
tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.105, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=0.726,
HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.105,
RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.365, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=2.43,
RAZOR2_CHECK=1.729, RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT=1.644,
T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01,
URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL=1.948, URIBL_BLACK=1.7]
Instead of URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 I see URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL=1.948,
URIBL_BLACK=1.7
It s still not ok, is it?
