Re: [Asrg] RFC 6471 and "listing the Internet" as a punishment

SM <sm@resistor.net> Wed, 25 January 2012 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9632721F84F6 for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:14:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eOj0BJN7a-Fb for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:14:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C3B821F84EF for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:14:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0PKEftc003107 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:14:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1327522486; i=@resistor.net; bh=CmYmeDm+4vsnf2M5Q/exLxid4BhLJUga/3jloDL760E=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=GqQvCvXyp6GcDZ4d3h96mMQ6Cus0zlZHv0SuE9KDiUuXdhF5UyGndwIXBNNokJ0O1 VDiAy9pUPtcTjuIUomQj0RYdCQ25A8vYoBI70VZqLnGxZfrWY8023rTu8JObqJgQ9z 5lbaGK/6dNnvhwVmD1bXzucGWwxecXasOROE9460=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1327522486; i=@resistor.net; bh=CmYmeDm+4vsnf2M5Q/exLxid4BhLJUga/3jloDL760E=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=cQsBDH3blB77WkJotPOb+vdcXrXGsLapeyr9PWZAaxpmxUh9JHO2zTJuvxCcmY5H/ CMhF670xj92jHklSOMuGnPyhwPWPWpyJ205SgtPNA7R4D8A186tvXMyuMUFpgm78fP DD1KxUC72gSQV0/81L31kg4KRaoQlBlVPe7HjpWU=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120125114411.0c099da8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:11:21 -0800
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F2056AC.9060401@hireahit.com>
References: <18B53BA2A483AD45962AAD1397BE13253846E0FE87@UK-EXCHMBX1.green.sophos> <6.2.5.6.2.20120125102806.0ae6afe8@resistor.net> <4F2056AC.9060401@hireahit.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [Asrg] RFC 6471 and "listing the Internet" as a punishment
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:14:47 -0000

At 11:23 25-01-2012, Dave Warren wrote:
>I have to wonder, if a DNSBL were being operated entirely on a free 
>basis (rather than a freemium model), might it not be better to take 
>advantage of the large caches out there rather than having thousands 
>of individual servers performing the same mundane set of lookups individually?

There are no large caches out there.  That's not how DNS works in my opinion.

>Obviously this negates the DNSBL's ability to try and pull cash out 
>of the larger entities, but purely from a resource management point 
>of view, if someone wants to offer a front-line cache for free, 
>surely that should reduce load.

It is expensive to provide such a cache for free.  Why would someone 
want to offer such a service for free?

Regards,
-sm