Dave Lugo wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, W B Hacker wrote:
>
>> JFWIW, I get 'manual' (host -v) failure on *both* 'insidersavings.com'
>> AND 'abo.wanadoo.fr' (haven't tried any further prefixes)
>
> abo.wanadoo.fr looks fine, it just doesn't itself have an IP, nor
> does it appear to be a delegated subdomain.
>
>>> +ignore_unknown
>>> doesn't seem to have any effect.
>> Per above, one may need an entry for each (beware MUA line-wrap):
>>
>> hosts = +ignore_unknown : insidersavings.com : +ignore_unknown : *.abo.wanadoo.fr
>>
>
>
> The docs are quite clear that once the option is specified, it remains
> in force:
No argument.
But *something* ain't right - or you would not be having the results you are.
More testing is needed - and/or PH pitching in with what the code expects to
happen. Or not.
Then perhaps some changes to the doc...
IOW - I am not (yet) clear as to whether it is 'bug' or spec anomaly.
>
> "Both "+include_unknown" and "+ignore_unknown" may appear in the same
> list. The effect of each one lasts until the next, or until the end of the
> list."
>
>> Why do a callout on 'known bad' entities?
>>
>
> Huh? I have a list of IPs and rDNS patterns I don't want to
> accept mail from. It seems pretty normal that folks would want
> to do that.
>
Absolutely!
What I mean is - once they are known and stable - why take the time and
resources to check them, again, every time they arrive (or have expired from the
lookups cached) by DNS or RBL callout at all?
A simple match against a local list may not take all that much less in the way
of CPU cycles, but at least removes the external link delay and b/w consumption
of a callout. I suspect it keeps caches/hints DB a wee bit 'leaner' as well.
JM2CW,
Bill
