spamassassin-dev December 2011 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > spamassassin-dev archives
spamassassin-dev: [Bug 6724] DNS Blacklistsreturning purposefull

[Bug 6724] DNS Blacklistsreturning purposefully wrong answers as part of Anti-Abuse / Free for Some Policies

From: <bugzilla-daemon_at_nospam>
Date: Tue Dec 13 2011 - 20:53:44 GMT

D. Stussy <> changed:

           What |Removed |Added
                 CC| |software+spamassassin@kd6lv
                   | |

--- Comment #16 from D. Stussy <> 2011-12-13 20:53:44 UTC ---
RE - Comment #14: We don't have to rely on a draft but can rely on the most
current published RFC (5782) on the topic which says the same thing.
Presumedly, the cited draft would update or obsolete that RFC.

The issue then becomes: Should we drop any use of a DNS-based-list which does
not follow follow RFC 5782 (and its successors), especially when they return
codes in the 127/8 range which are not meant to be actual determinations of the
data they contain? I say yes. From RFC 1035, refusal to answer should be
signalled with a "REFUSED" query RC, but if data were returned, it should
indicate an A record with an address OUTSIDE of 127/8. I would personally
suggest to these DNS-list maintainers returning "" to indicate a
non-response. All-zeros makes sense for a "null answer." Defining a
"non-response due to abuse" code within 127/8 is irresponsible considering the
BCP of the RFC.

In a prior post (in a related issue), I did consider (and rejected the
decision) that SA test for validity all DNS-lists upon startup by querying for
"" (NXDOMAIN or 0 answers expected) and "" (1+ answer(s)
expected). I rejected that position because if the entire world (or a
significant portion) rebooted at once, we would effectively be executing a
denial of service attack (by flooding) on the DNS-lists.

-- Configure bugmail: ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.