Dave Lugo wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Renaud Allard wrote:
>> This further confirms my example 1 as some people are caching DNS much
>> more than they should as my 2 servers static IPs have been removed from
>> sorbs for weeks:
>
> Er, what?
>
> /greps sorbs' soa out of the logfile ...
>
> Apr 27 04:31:13 severe rbldnsd[490]: combined:dnsbl.sorbs.net_rbldnsd: 20080427 083034: subzones=20 datasets=14
> Apr 27 23:31:02 severe rbldnsd[490]: combined:dnsbl.sorbs.net_rbldnsd: 20080428 033043: subzones=20 datasets=14
> Apr 28 04:30:58 severe rbldnsd[490]: combined:dnsbl.sorbs.net_rbldnsd: 20080428 083037: subzones=20 datasets=14
> Apr 28 23:31:47 severe rbldnsd[490]: combined:dnsbl.sorbs.net_rbldnsd: 20080429 033043: subzones=20 datasets=14
> Apr 29 04:30:44 severe rbldnsd[490]: combined:dnsbl.sorbs.net_rbldnsd: 20080429 083027: subzones=20 datasets=14
> Apr 29 23:31:33 severe rbldnsd[490]: combined:dnsbl.sorbs.net_rbldnsd: 20080430 033047: subzones=20 datasets=14
> Apr 30 04:31:29 severe rbldnsd[490]: combined:dnsbl.sorbs.net_rbldnsd: 20080430 083025: subzones=20 datasets=14
>
> Your complaint appears to be with SORBS, not ...
>
>
> ... me :)
Well, I haven't it any false positive for quite some time, and asking
sorbs website says:
Netblock: 206.251.244.80/28 (206.251.244.80-206.251.244.95)
Record Created: Fri May 12 04:38:48 2006 GMT
Record Updated: Sun Apr 6 08:12:16 2008 GMT
Additional Information: This netblock was removed/delisted, future
listings will supersede this entry.
Since April the 6th, I am not listed anymore and their TTL is 86400.
Since you seem to use a copy of their blacklist, are you sure it is
copied successfully, even if SOA suggests it?
>
> No cc of list mail needed, thanks ;)
No need to pursue this on list anyway, it has got seriously OT now.
>
> (and I've added a WL entry here for you, just in case)
>
Thanks, I am using it :)
