[122603] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Spamhaus...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Black)
Wed Feb 17 18:52:28 2010
From: "Matthew Black" <black@csulb.edu>
To: "Laczo, Louis" <Louis.Laczo@PaeTec.com>,"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:51:55 -0800
In-Reply-To: <785686BA670E9840A0992A810829B189D2B4883C@NYMAILCLUSTER1.corp.paetec.com>
Reply-To: Matthew Black <black@csulb.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:32:51 -0500
"Laczo, Louis" <Louis.Laczo@PaeTec.com> wrote:
>Folks,
>
> I'm looking for comments / suggestions / opinions from any providers that
>have been contacted by spamhaus about excessive queries originating from
>their DNS resolvers, typically, as a proxy for customers. I know that
>certain large DNS providers (i.e. google and level3) have either been
>banned or have voluntarily blocked spamhaus queries by their resolvers.
>We're currently in discussion with spamhaus and I wanted to see how others
>may have handled this.
>
> Thanks!
> --Lou
When we licensed Spamhaus a few years back, they required us to set-up a DNS
slave server instead of querying against their public server. They had a
special DNS client that allowed partial zone updates. Turns out we
downloaded huge hourly updates.
We no longer use Spamhaus, relying instead upon Sender Base Reputation
Scores (IronPort).
matthew black
e-mail postmaster
california state university, long beach
