Re: Different RCVD_IN_DNSWL rules applied to my IP

[Alessandro Vesely <vesely@xxxxxxx>]

On Sat 03/Sep/2022 12:42:25 +0200 Bernd H. Steiner wrote:
> Am 03.09.2022 12:30, schrieb Greg Troxel:
>
> > I would be shocked if eden.one ended up in HI without you
> > knowing about it by way of applying, and highly surprised if it were HI
> > at all.  HI is things like bank servers that send alerts, very broad-brushy.
>
> the *maximum* trust level for category 6 private/personal is MED


Is that a political meddling?


> > In general, RBLs have defenses against excessive queries, and sometimes
> > those end up being false results, on the theory that it's the only way
> > to get people to stop.  I'm not saying DNSWL has any mechanisms at all
> > for excessive queries
>
> https://www.dnswl.org/?p=118


That link leads to a page referred to as "previous method", which says:

    “listed, hi” response

    In the extreme cases listed above, and for a limited time until query rates
    have gone down to the acceptable limits, we may return a special answer
    code to all queries, 127.0.10.3. The “10” indicates that this is a
    “special” return code, the “3” stands for “high trust” level.


Instead, I found an old snippet of code looking for 0x7f0000ff, that is 
127.0.0.255, which was supposed to be the code returned for invalid.  Indeed, 
it is still mentioned as a special return code in:
https://www.dnswl.org/?page_id=15#returncodes


Is there a way to check overquota that can be coded in publicly available software?


Best
Ale