Re: [exim] dnsbls

--On 14 March 2008 12:22:11 +0000 "Martin A. Brooks"
<martin@???> wrote:

> Ian Eiloart wrote:
>> It seems that (b) is unreasonable
>
> It's their ball, therefore their rules.

Yes, of course. I'm still allowed an opinion, though.

The rule doesn't seem to me to have any obvious justification. Especially
when it means that a spammer could put me in breach of the rule without
having any direct impact on spamhaus. In fact, they do. We only exceed that
limit when you take the amount of spam that we reject into account. We
probably don't often exceed the 180k requests per day.

We use the JANET service, so it doesn't currently have an impact, but we
were firewalled a few weeks before the JANET service became available. That
was because we hit a million spam messages per day, and exceeded the DNS
request limit.

Ironically, as soon as we got the JANET service, the spam dried up somewhat.

Another thing: what's the point of a rule that you can't enforce?

--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
x3148