Re: Usage mistake with dnswl.org

[Sydney Meyer <sydney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/19/22 21:26, Bernd H. Steiner wrote:
> Am 19.12.2022 um 21:10 schrieb Greg Troxel:
>
> > You said "suspect" but do you have any evidence?
> And "negative lookup-scores in spam-filters" can also be "unspammy" as 
> e.g. spamassassin scores negative in sense of "good" or HAM
No, i would not know how to come about such information, i.e. what a 
smtp server has done with the mail after accepting. User reports in 
timely coincidence with the change i made at dnswl.org, i.e. adding the 
ip-addresses to the dnswl-id, but no evidence/information as such.
> > As I understand it, DNSWL lists IP addresses, not domains, but it only
> > lists addresses associated with validated domains. From the query
> > viewpoint, though, you just look up an address.
> yes, queries are ip-based.
>
> See dnswl.org doc:
>
> "The query must always go to the zone “list.dnswl.org” in standard 
> DNSBL format, ie with a reversed dotted quad IP address. To query 
> whether the IP address “1.2.3.4” is listed, the query would thus be
> 4.3.2.1.list.dnswl.org"
>
> (no domain query at all)
Does this mean, that the query would then have no implication about a 
ostensibly "missmatching" ip/domain rule as there is no such relation or 
it does not apply?
> > I do know that you can't associate an IP address with a domain, if those
> > IP addresses are already associated with some other domain. 
> correct. would also cause problems with PTR, wouldn't it?
> > It seems that you can associate multiple domains with a single dnswl id,
> > Correct too.
I guess, this is (one point) where i misunderstood.
> > regards
> > bernd