Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: SpamAssassin: users

SURBL Usage Policy change

 

 

SpamAssassin users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


jeffc at surbl

Nov 10, 2008, 4:45 AM

Post #1 of 25 (1910 views)
Permalink
SURBL Usage Policy change

Wanted to give a heads up the SURBL is starting to ask the
largest rsync users of its data for sponsorship fees to help
subsidize the small to medium sized organizations using it, and
to help keep SUBRL running, to do more research into improving
the data, etc.

Please note that free public DNS queries for organizations smaller
than 1,000 users or processing fewer than 250,000 messages per
day is unchanged. We hope this matches the spirit of the open
source community at least somewhat.

Cheers,

Jeff C.



Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 09:17:33 -0800
To: "SURBL Announce" <announce [at] lists>,
From: "SURBL Announcement list \[READONLY\]" <announce [at] lists>
Subject: [SURBL-Announce] SURBL Usage Policy change

Dear member of the SURBL community:

As a valued member of the SURBL community, we are contacting you to
provide an update on changes that SURBL has made to its licensing and
usage policies. SURBL is dedicated to helping the community detect
unsolicited messages, and trusts the service is working effectively for
your organization.

The primary objective of the SURBL team is to ensure that SURBL remains
effective, of the highest quality, and sustainable over the long term.
The goal is to provide a tool that remains available and effective for
the Internet community to control the spiraling growth of unsolicited
messages, particularly those sent using botnets. As such, SURBL is
following a model that has proven successful in gaining the support of
subscribers from its user community. The new licensing policy requires
that organizations exceeding 1,000 email users or 250,000 messages per
day are required to register and sign up for the Sponsored Data Service
(SDS). The funding will be used to enable SURBL to continue as a
sustainable organization, and to enhance the effectiveness and
capabilities of its service. The funding is, by design, very moderate
and will provide much needed support to sustain this initiative.

We are providing you this notice to ensure you are aware of the policy
changes, and can help your organization to make a proactive decision.


The needs of the SURBL user community have always been foremost in our
planning. Some of the benefits to subscribers include direct access to
technical support, the ability to whitelist web sites, and increased
rsync updating frequencies. In addition, the whole SURBL community will
benefit from expanded research to further improve the speed,
completeness and accuracy of the list data. SURBL's vision is to
continue to enhance the functionality, quality, and overall
effectiveness for the entire user community.

As valued members of the SURBL community, we appreciate your support,
and ask for your help in this new licensing model.

SURBL has partnered with MXTools which will provide dedicated customer
service and technical support. MXTools provides a similar role
for Spamhaus, providing sales and support of the Spamhaus
Datafeed Service.

Please contact support [at] mxtools to provide feedback and to indicate
your level of interest in the continued use of SURBL. Pricing
information can be found at: http://www.surbl.org/datafeed/

SURBL would also like to take this opportunity to announce that
SURBL is now a project of Site Data Corporation, a Seychelles
corporation. No listing policies will change as a result of any
of these changes, however the additional resources should enable
improvements to the completeness and coverage of SURBL data.

Sincerely,

Jeff Chan
William Stearns
Joe Wein
Raymond Dijkxhoorn
Andy Warner
SURBL
http://www.surbl.org/

Arnie Bjorklund
MXTools
http://www.mxtools.com/
1-866-931-9228

Reference Information:

SURBL usage policy: http://www.surbl.org/usage-policy.html
MXTools - Authorized SURBL Representatives: http://www.surbl.org/datafeed/



SURBL Usage Policy

SURBL data are updated more than 240 times daily and are provided to
users worldwide via public DNS servers or via a data feed service. The
former (DNS query) is completely free and subject to certain usage
restrictions, while the latter (Data Feed) is a paid service. The
revenue generated by the paid service ensures that SURBL can continue to
reliably provide the information that hundreds of millions of users
depend upon to keep their mailboxes and computers safe from messages
that are unsolicited, phishing, or malware.

Free Use:
For individual users, small charitable or non-profit organizations,
small businesses or any other organizations that have fewer than 1,000
users or that scan fewer than 250,000 messages per day in total, the
SURBL Free Query Service (FQS) is completely free and can be accessed
via a worldwide network of servers. This network of servers is
geographically diverse to ensure a very high level of responsiveness and
reliability.

Sponsored Use:
Any organization, including software developers, ISPs, or large
organizations that provide email filtering (either as hardware, software
or services, individually or as a combined offering) of 1,000 or more
users SHOULD NOT be using the SURBL FQS. Instead they need to sign up
for the Sponsored Data Service (SDS). SDS was developed to meet the
professional needs of organizations and email technology providers who
have a large number of mail messages to scan. As such it is far more
efficient to conduct these scans against a local copy of the SURBL data.
The SDS data are provided using an rsync feed that automatically updates
the content with new additions. The SDS subscription fee includes
unlimited access to our technical support team.

SURBL monitors the use of the FQS to ensure that heavy users are not
abusing FQS, which is reserved for use by small organizations and
individual end users.
________________________________________
SURBL Usage Policy effective 10/1/08


micah at riseup

Nov 11, 2008, 10:20 AM

Post #2 of 25 (1857 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

"Jeff Chan" <jeffc [at] surbl> writes:

I think that SURBL is a valuable service, and I understand how it is
difficult to maintain such a service without resources.

> The funding is, by design, very moderate and will provide much needed
> support to sustain this initiative.

However, I believe that for non-profit organizations the funding model
is not moderate at all. Perhaps this is because of the unfortunate
decision to put non-profits into the same category as governments, which
typically are able to bring in much larger amounts of money. Or perhaps
it is a short-sighted view that non-profits all fall into the same
category of large, well-funded non-profits. While there are some that do
have resources available to them, a large majority of non-profits are
deeply struggling with resources and honestly I cannot imagine any being
able to afford the subscription rates that are listed for
non-profits/governments. I'm on the board of directors and am an
executive for three different non-profit organizations, and although
they all would be eager to contribute to SURBL, none of them could
possibly meet the funding bar that has been set.

The SURBL FQS is great, and it is appreciated that you have thought of
small charitable/non-profits with low email volume. However, I think you
are missing that there are small charitable/non-profits that can do this
volume on a extremely tight budget.

Micah


jeffc at surbl

Nov 11, 2008, 4:33 PM

Post #3 of 25 (1853 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

On Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 8:49:44 AM, Micah Anderson wrote:
> "Jeff Chan" <jeffc [at] surbl> writes:

> I think that SURBL is a valuable service, and I understand how it is
> difficult to maintain such a service without resources.

>> The funding is, by design, very moderate and will provide much needed
>> support to sustain this initiative.

> However, I believe that for non-profit organizations the funding model
> is not moderate at all. Perhaps this is because of the unfortunate
> decision to put non-profits into the same category as governments, which
> typically are able to bring in much larger amounts of money. Or perhaps
> it is a short-sighted view that non-profits all fall into the same
> category of large, well-funded non-profits. While there are some that do
> have resources available to them, a large majority of non-profits are
> deeply struggling with resources and honestly I cannot imagine any being
> able to afford the subscription rates that are listed for
> non-profits/governments. I'm on the board of directors and am an
> executive for three different non-profit organizations, and although
> they all would be eager to contribute to SURBL, none of them could
> possibly meet the funding bar that has been set.

> The SURBL FQS is great, and it is appreciated that you have thought of
> small charitable/non-profits with low email volume. However, I think you
> are missing that there are small charitable/non-profits that can do this
> volume on a extremely tight budget.

> Micah


Hi Micah,
Thanks very much for the feedback. Does anyone know how many
non-profits have more than 1,000 users (i.e., users with
mailboxes)? The non-profit pricing is below ISPs and half that
of regular end users.

Cheers,

Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc [at] surbl
http://www.surbl.org/


dkoontz at mbc

Nov 11, 2008, 4:58 PM

Post #4 of 25 (1857 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

Jeff Chan wrote ... (11/11/2008 7:33 PM):
> Hi Micah,
> Thanks very much for the feedback. Does anyone know how many
> non-profits have more than 1,000 users (i.e., users with
> mailboxes)? The non-profit pricing is below ISPs and half that
> of regular end users.
>
There are many non-profits out there that will hit your limits... I
don't think anyone knows how many there are. 1,000 users is fairly
trivial, and most non profits won't even be able to fill in your forms
second "required" field of how many messages on "Average" they send a day.

I can tell you that most all small 'private' not for profit schools and
colleges will get hit hard by your new fees. In fact, your new fees are
more than we spend on our email server per year, and as a result will
never happen.

Given this change in SURBL in policy and pricing, I would strongly
suggest removing their rules from the SA rule base. Otherwise, you will
likely get lots of complaints from users of systems that have embedded
SA installs, or others who do not monitor this list. I can see many
Barracuda users not having a clue why they are now being blocked and
their systems are processing messages slower as a result.

Sorry Jeff, but this is much too expensive for us and many others I suspect.


hege at hege

Nov 12, 2008, 2:14 AM

Post #5 of 25 (1846 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 07:58:01PM -0500, Dave Koontz wrote:
>
> Given this change in SURBL in policy and pricing, I would strongly
> suggest removing their rules from the SA rule base. Otherwise, you will
> likely get lots of complaints from users of systems that have embedded
> SA installs, or others who do not monitor this list. I can see many
> Barracuda users not having a clue why they are now being blocked and
> their systems are processing messages slower as a result.

By your reasoning, spamhaus should also be removed from default rules.


raymond at prolocation

Nov 12, 2008, 2:22 AM

Post #6 of 25 (1851 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

Hi!

>> Given this change in SURBL in policy and pricing, I would strongly
>> suggest removing their rules from the SA rule base. Otherwise, you will
>> likely get lots of complaints from users of systems that have embedded
>> SA installs, or others who do not monitor this list. I can see many
>> Barracuda users not having a clue why they are now being blocked and
>> their systems are processing messages slower as a result.

> By your reasoning, spamhaus should also be removed from default rules.

Many others have a high volume policy also. You end up with a minimal
list. This is ok, but surprisingly operating infrastructure does cost time
and money ;)

Bye,
Raymond.


email at ace

Nov 12, 2008, 2:33 AM

Post #7 of 25 (1854 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

On 11/11/2008 at 7:58 PM Dave Koontz wrote:

>There are many non-profits out there that will hit your limits... I
>don't think anyone knows how many there are. 1,000 users is fairly
>trivial, and most non profits won't even be able to fill in your forms
>second "required" field of how many messages on "Average" they send a day.
>
>I can tell you that most all small 'private' not for profit schools and
>colleges will get hit hard by your new fees. In fact, your new fees are
>more than we spend on our email server per year, and as a result will
>never happen.
>
>Given this change in SURBL in policy and pricing, I would strongly
>suggest removing their rules from the SA rule base. Otherwise, you will
>likely get lots of complaints from users of systems that have embedded
>SA installs, or others who do not monitor this list. I can see many
>Barracuda users not having a clue why they are now being blocked and
>their systems are processing messages slower as a result.
>
>Sorry Jeff, but this is much too expensive for us and many others I
>suspect.


"or processing fewer than 250,000 messages per day"

Wouldn't that cover most not for profit organisations?

Peter


jeffc at surbl

Nov 12, 2008, 2:35 AM

Post #8 of 25 (1841 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

On Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 4:58:01 PM, Dave Koontz wrote:
> Jeff Chan wrote ... (11/11/2008 7:33 PM):
>> Hi Micah,
>> Thanks very much for the feedback. Does anyone know how many
>> non-profits have more than 1,000 users (i.e., users with
>> mailboxes)? The non-profit pricing is below ISPs and half that
>> of regular end users.
>>
> There are many non-profits out there that will hit your limits... I
> don't think anyone knows how many there are. 1,000 users is fairly
> trivial, and most non profits won't even be able to fill in your forms
> second "required" field of how many messages on "Average" they send a day.

To be clear, the field asks for an average number of inbound not
outbound messages.

> I can tell you that most all small 'private' not for profit schools and
> colleges will get hit hard by your new fees. In fact, your new fees are
> more than we spend on our email server per year, and as a result will
> never happen.

That's useful feedback, but perhaps not a useful measurement.
Servers and reputation data are different things. One is
hardware and the other is data service.

Without data, the server probably is not very effective at
filtering. (Conversely without the hardware the data can't be
used, so one needs both.) So I suppose the question is: "how
valuable are the data?", as opposed to "how valuable is the
hardware?"

> Given this change in SURBL in policy and pricing, I would strongly
> suggest removing their rules from the SA rule base. Otherwise, you will
> likely get lots of complaints from users of systems that have embedded
> SA installs, or others who do not monitor this list.

By default, network tests are disabled in SA. And any large
users should be using rsync. Any small to medium sized users can
continue to use the DNS queries for free.

> I can see many
> Barracuda users not having a clue why they are now being blocked and
> their systems are processing messages slower as a result.

Barracuda would pay for the data as a mail filter vendor. Their
customers would not pay directly.

> Sorry Jeff, but this is much too expensive for us and many others I suspect.

What pricing would you recommend?

Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc [at] surbl
http://www.surbl.org/


jeffc at surbl

Nov 12, 2008, 2:40 AM

Post #9 of 25 (1843 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

On Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 2:33:53 AM, Peter Nitschke wrote:

> On 11/11/2008 at 7:58 PM Dave Koontz wrote:

>>There are many non-profits out there that will hit your limits... I
>>don't think anyone knows how many there are. 1,000 users is fairly
>>trivial, and most non profits won't even be able to fill in your forms
>>second "required" field of how many messages on "Average" they send a day.
>>
>>I can tell you that most all small 'private' not for profit schools and
>>colleges will get hit hard by your new fees. In fact, your new fees are
>>more than we spend on our email server per year, and as a result will
>>never happen.
>>
>>Given this change in SURBL in policy and pricing, I would strongly
>>suggest removing their rules from the SA rule base. Otherwise, you will
>>likely get lots of complaints from users of systems that have embedded
>>SA installs, or others who do not monitor this list. I can see many
>>Barracuda users not having a clue why they are now being blocked and
>>their systems are processing messages slower as a result.
>>
>>Sorry Jeff, but this is much too expensive for us and many others I
>>suspect.


> "or processing fewer than 250,000 messages per day"

> Wouldn't that cover most not for profit organisations?

> Peter

We deliberately chose 1,000 users and 250,000 messages to be high
limits. Most small to medium sized organizations would not hit
them and could therefore keep using the free DNS queries.

Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc [at] surbl
http://www.surbl.org/


hege at hege

Nov 12, 2008, 3:15 AM

Post #10 of 25 (1857 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 04:33:50PM -0800, Jeff Chan wrote:
>
> Hi Micah,
> Thanks very much for the feedback. Does anyone know how many
> non-profits have more than 1,000 users (i.e., users with
> mailboxes)? The non-profit pricing is below ISPs and half that
> of regular end users.

Sometimes the requirements make no sense. A server with 1 user can receive
more spam than a server with 1000 users. Both may be non-profit and receive
no money from users. There is a huge difference also whether you use
greylisting and other rules _before_ blacklist checks.

So which is it, 250000 messages (queries) or 1000 users?

1000 users and 10000 messages costs 500 USD.
1000 users and 250000 messages costs 500 USD.

Which affects DNS servers more?

Of course people can pretty easily lie about numbers. Setting up rsync
access does require some effort and resources. You could just write that
either pay the minimum 500 USD or don't bother us.

If a large ISP pays 2000 USD for 10000000 messages, I'm not going to pay 500
USD for 50000 non-profit messages (I am over the 1000 user limit and use
aggressive filtering before rbls).

I would be happy to pay a nominal fee for "rsync-access" though, since it
does make things more secure and faster, also allows to use the data for
other purposes. Before that's reality, I guess someone needs to come up with
a better public distribution method than rsync. P2P?

By the way, do DNS mirrors get paid anything? It's my non-educated
impression that most big blacklists consist largely of donated DNS servers
from big ISPs etc. Respect to those that dare to face DoSes. :)


email at ace

Nov 12, 2008, 3:26 AM

Post #11 of 25 (1839 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

On 12/11/2008 at 1:15 PM Henrik K wrote:

>On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 04:33:50PM -0800, Jeff Chan wrote:
>>
>> Hi Micah,
>> Thanks very much for the feedback. Does anyone know how many
>> non-profits have more than 1,000 users (i.e., users with
>> mailboxes)? The non-profit pricing is below ISPs and half that
>> of regular end users.
>
>Sometimes the requirements make no sense. A server with 1 user can receive
>more spam than a server with 1000 users. Both may be non-profit and
receive
>no money from users. There is a huge difference also whether you use
>greylisting and other rules _before_ blacklist checks.
>
>So which is it, 250000 messages (queries) or 1000 users?
>
>1000 users and 10000 messages costs 500 USD.
>1000 users and 250000 messages costs 500 USD.
>
>Which affects DNS servers more?
>
>Of course people can pretty easily lie about numbers. Setting up rsync
>access does require some effort and resources. You could just write that
>either pay the minimum 500 USD or don't bother us.
>
>If a large ISP pays 2000 USD for 10000000 messages, I'm not going to pay
>500
>USD for 50000 non-profit messages (I am over the 1000 user limit and use
>aggressive filtering before rbls).
>
>I would be happy to pay a nominal fee for "rsync-access" though, since it
>does make things more secure and faster, also allows to use the data for
>other purposes. Before that's reality, I guess someone needs to come up
>with
>a better public distribution method than rsync. P2P?
>
>By the way, do DNS mirrors get paid anything? It's my non-educated
>impression that most big blacklists consist largely of donated DNS servers
>from big ISPs etc. Respect to those that dare to face DoSes. :)

Read the entire sentence.

"Please note that free public DNS queries for organizations smaller
than 1,000 users or processing fewer than 250,000 messages per
day is unchanged. "

So you could have 1,000,000 users but less than 250,000 messages per day,
or get 3 gazillion messages per day but for less than 1000 users.

The key word is "or".

If you satisfy either requirement ( <1,000 users OR <250,000 mails) then
you still get free access.

Or am I the one reading it wrong?

Peter


hege at hege

Nov 12, 2008, 3:38 AM

Post #12 of 25 (1844 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 09:56:46PM +1030, Peter Nitschke wrote:
>
> Read the entire sentence.
>
> "Please note that free public DNS queries for organizations smaller
> than 1,000 users or processing fewer than 250,000 messages per
> day is unchanged. "
>
> So you could have 1,000,000 users but less than 250,000 messages per day,
> or get 3 gazillion messages per day but for less than 1000 users.
>
> The key word is "or".
>
> If you satisfy either requirement ( <1,000 users OR <250,000 mails) then
> you still get free access.
>
> Or am I the one reading it wrong?

I don't understand what users have to do in this context. It's the queries
that affect DNS servers.

It's hard to judge organizations wealth from user count also. I guess there
should be some methods for deciding what to pay, but the current ones don't
make sense to me. It should be up to the queries or free donations.


uhlar at fantomas

Nov 12, 2008, 4:00 AM

Post #13 of 25 (1843 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

On 12.11.08 21:56, Peter Nitschke wrote:
> Read the entire sentence.
>
> "Please note that free public DNS queries for organizations smaller
> than 1,000 users or processing fewer than 250,000 messages per
> day is unchanged. "
>
> So you could have 1,000,000 users but less than 250,000 messages per day,
> or get 3 gazillion messages per day but for less than 1000 users.
>
> The key word is "or".
>
> If you satisfy either requirement ( <1,000 users OR <250,000 mails) then
> you still get free access.
>
> Or am I the one reading it wrong?

In another mail to surbl list it was mentioned that any organization who has
more than >1000 users or processes >250000 messages per day, the feed must
be set up and charge paid.

That meant you need to have <=1000 users AND process <=250000 messages daily
(average) to have free access.

--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar [at] fantomas ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
10 GOTO 10 : REM (C) Bill Gates 1998, All Rights Reserved!


uhlar at fantomas

Nov 12, 2008, 4:03 AM

Post #14 of 25 (1856 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

On 12.11.08 13:00, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> In another mail to surbl list it was mentioned that any organization who has
> more than >1000 users or processes >250000 messages per day, the feed must
> be set up and charge paid.
>
> That meant you need to have <=1000 users AND process <=250000 messages daily
> (average) to have free access.

Ops, it's <1000 u AND <250000 m/d for free access or >=1000u or >=250000 m/d
for non-free access
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar [at] fantomas ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Micro$oft random number generator: 0, 0, 0, 4.33e+67, 0, 0, 0...


matthias at leisi

Nov 12, 2008, 4:28 AM

Post #15 of 25 (1839 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

> I don't understand what users have to do in this context. It's the queries
> that affect DNS servers.

It's obviously true that the number of queries is the cause for
introducing any limitation/pricing scheme. But it's pretty hard for a
receiving site to actually know how many DNS queries they're doing towards
a particular nameserver or a particular zone (it would require extensive
logging and log-parsing).

Number of users or number of messages is a good approximation of the
number of actual DNS queries, and sufficiently simple to determine.

At dnswl.org, we consider any source (being losely defined as a /24 doing
more than 100'000 queries / 24 hours as a "large" user, and ask them to
switch to rsync access (however this is not strongly enforced at present,
and does not involve money).

-- Matthias


sm at resistor

Nov 12, 2008, 6:17 AM

Post #16 of 25 (1853 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

At 16:58 11-11-2008, Dave Koontz wrote:
>Given this change in SURBL in policy and pricing, I would strongly
>suggest removing their rules from the SA rule base. Otherwise, you will
>likely get lots of complaints from users of systems that have embedded
>SA installs, or others who do not monitor this list. I can see many
>Barracuda users not having a clue why they are now being blocked and
>their systems are processing messages slower as a result.

Most blacklists have a usage policy where you are charged if your
site generates more than X queries. As the SpamAssassin rule base
contains several blacklists which are pay-ware, those rules would
have to be removed as well. Barracuda users being blocked is not a
SpamAssassin issue.

Do you want SpamAssassin to include a warning about "external charges
may apply if the blacklists included in the rule base are used to
process more than X messages or if your site has more than Y users"?

Regards,
-sm


guenther at rudersport

Nov 12, 2008, 6:29 AM

Post #17 of 25 (1846 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 13:00 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 12.11.08 21:56, Peter Nitschke wrote:
> > Read the entire sentence.
> >
> > "Please note that free public DNS queries for organizations smaller
> > than 1,000 users or processing fewer than 250,000 messages per
> > day is unchanged. "

> > If you satisfy either requirement ( <1,000 users OR <250,000 mails) then
> > you still get free access.

> In another mail to surbl list it was mentioned that any organization who has
> more than >1000 users or processes >250000 messages per day, the feed must
> be set up and charge paid.
>
> That meant you need to have <=1000 users AND process <=250000 messages daily
> (average) to have free access.

Hmm, that's not what http://www.surbl.org/usage-policy.html says about
the FQS. It states OR there, so Peter's understanding seems to be
correct.

On the other hand though, that same page states 1k users as the sole
limit to require SDS...


That's kind of fuzzy and mind boggling. ;) Anyway, I guess all this
should be taken with a grain of salt. In particular "posts to lists"
that accidentally might have changed the logic by not applying proper
boolean logic when talking about the subject.

guenther


--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}


brennan at columbia

Nov 12, 2008, 9:25 AM

Post #18 of 25 (1841 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

Jeff Chan <jeffc [at] surbl> wrote:

> Does anyone know how many non-profits have more than 1,000 users
> (i.e., users with mailboxes)?


Most universities and colleges have many more than that. An
undergrad-only school that admits only about 200 a year would
pass that number, counting faculty and staff and the summer
overlap of graduated and admitted student accounts.

Requiring large organizations to use rsync and charging for it
makes a lot of sense. How much, though... and we didn't budget
this in when we estimated last spring, for the July-June fiscal
year schools use...

Joseph Brennan
Columbia University Information Technology


rosenbaumlm at ornl

Nov 12, 2008, 10:55 AM

Post #19 of 25 (1838 views)
Permalink
RE: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

Where is the price list? I haven't been able to find it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Brennan [mailto:brennan [at] columbia]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 12:25 PM
> To: users [at] spamassassin
> Subject: Re: SURBL Usage Policy change
>
>
> Jeff Chan <jeffc [at] surbl> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know how many non-profits have more than 1,000 users
> > (i.e., users with mailboxes)?
>
>
> Most universities and colleges have many more than that. An
> undergrad-only school that admits only about 200 a year would
> pass that number, counting faculty and staff and the summer
> overlap of graduated and admitted student accounts.
>
> Requiring large organizations to use rsync and charging for it
> makes a lot of sense. How much, though... and we didn't budget
> this in when we estimated last spring, for the July-June fiscal
> year schools use...
>
> Joseph Brennan
> Columbia University Information Technology
>


jeffc at surbl

Nov 12, 2008, 12:37 PM

Post #20 of 25 (1846 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

On Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 10:55:52 AM, Larry Rosenbaum wrote:
> Where is the price list? I haven't been able to find it.

Hi Larry,
The pricing calculator is the first step of the data feed form:

http://www.surbl.org/datafeed/

Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc [at] surbl
http://www.surbl.org/


jeffc at surbl

Nov 12, 2008, 12:45 PM

Post #21 of 25 (1855 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

On Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 3:15:26 AM, Henrik K wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 04:33:50PM -0800, Jeff Chan wrote:
>>
>> Hi Micah,
>> Thanks very much for the feedback. Does anyone know how many
>> non-profits have more than 1,000 users (i.e., users with
>> mailboxes)? The non-profit pricing is below ISPs and half that
>> of regular end users.

> Sometimes the requirements make no sense. A server with 1 user can receive
> more spam than a server with 1000 users. Both may be non-profit and receive
> no money from users. There is a huge difference also whether you use
> greylisting and other rules _before_ blacklist checks.

> So which is it, 250000 messages (queries) or 1000 users?

> 1000 users and 10000 messages costs 500 USD.
> 1000 users and 250000 messages costs 500 USD.

> Which affects DNS servers more?

It's not directly about the DNS service since DNS service is
entirely unpaid on both the server and client sides. (Please see
below). It's more about trying to find some way to measure for
the rsync service.

> By the way, do DNS mirrors get paid anything? It's my non-educated
> impression that most big blacklists consist largely of donated DNS servers
> from big ISPs etc. Respect to those that dare to face DoSes. :)

The DNS mirrors are voluntarily provided and the DNS queries are
freely used. Therefore there is no money to or from the free DNS
service. It's only the rsync access for large organizations that
we're asking sponsorship fees for.

Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc [at] surbl
http://www.surbl.org/


shiva at sewingwitch

Nov 12, 2008, 1:35 PM

Post #22 of 25 (1851 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

On Wednesday, November 12, 2008 1:28 PM +0100 Matthias Leisi
<matthias [at] leisi> wrote:

> Number of users or number of messages is a good approximation of the
> number of actual DNS queries, and sufficiently simple to determine.
>
> At dnswl.org, we consider any source (being losely defined as a /24 doing
> more than 100'000 queries / 24 hours as a "large" user, and ask them to
> switch to rsync access (however this is not strongly enforced at present,
> and does not involve money).

Does it help to configure one's DNS server to direct queries for this zone
to one's ISP's servers, to let the ISP provide some additional caching and
consolidation? I don't generally forward/stub to my ISP but I'd be willing
to do that for services like this to reduce load on the source.


matthias at leisi

Nov 12, 2008, 2:08 PM

Post #23 of 25 (1836 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

Kenneth Porter schrieb:

>> At dnswl.org, we consider any source (being losely defined as a /24 doing
>> more than 100'000 queries / 24 hours as a "large" user, and ask them to
>> switch to rsync access (however this is not strongly enforced at present,
>> and does not involve money).
>
> Does it help to configure one's DNS server to direct queries for this
> zone to one's ISP's servers, to let the ISP provide some additional
> caching and consolidation? I don't generally forward/stub to my ISP but
> I'd be willing to do that for services like this to reduce load on the
> source.

As always: It depends :)

If multiple users with roughly equal traffic patterns use the same ISPs
nameserver, caching should be efficient enough to noticeably reduce the
WAN load. In that case it may even make sense if the ISP would set up a
local mirror of our data (even if only for it's own users and not as a
public mirror).

OpenDNS may have a big enough user base in order to make the caching
truly effective (but they started using a local copy of our data some
time ago, so I can't even guess the order of magnitude of their "cache
factor").

But, if you are willing to configure your nameserver specifically for
such lists, you may even use a local copy of the data yourself - we
provide a BIND-formatted file.

[.I just noticed that we don't have setup hints on
http://www.dnswl.org/tech - I just opened an internal ticket to fix
that :) ]

-- Matthias


email at ace

Nov 12, 2008, 6:56 PM

Post #24 of 25 (1846 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

On 12/11/2008 at 12:45 PM Jeff Chan wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 3:15:26 AM, Henrik K wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 04:33:50PM -0800, Jeff Chan wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Micah,
>>> Thanks very much for the feedback. Does anyone know how many
>>> non-profits have more than 1,000 users (i.e., users with
>>> mailboxes)? The non-profit pricing is below ISPs and half that
>>> of regular end users.
>
>> Sometimes the requirements make no sense. A server with 1 user can
>receive
>> more spam than a server with 1000 users. Both may be non-profit and
>receive
>> no money from users. There is a huge difference also whether you use
>> greylisting and other rules _before_ blacklist checks.
>
>> So which is it, 250000 messages (queries) or 1000 users?
>
>> 1000 users and 10000 messages costs 500 USD.
>> 1000 users and 250000 messages costs 500 USD.
>
>> Which affects DNS servers more?
>
>It's not directly about the DNS service since DNS service is
>entirely unpaid on both the server and client sides. (Please see
>below). It's more about trying to find some way to measure for
>the rsync service.
>
>> By the way, do DNS mirrors get paid anything? It's my non-educated
>> impression that most big blacklists consist largely of donated DNS
>servers
>> from big ISPs etc. Respect to those that dare to face DoSes. :)
>
>The DNS mirrors are voluntarily provided and the DNS queries are
>freely used. Therefore there is no money to or from the free DNS
>service. It's only the rsync access for large organizations that
>we're asking sponsorship fees for.

The web site has conflicting information regarding "and/or" 1,000
users/250,000 mails.

Does the number of users really matter?

I would suggest simplify it that you require rsync access for 250,000 mails
scanned and leave it at that, then charge whatever you see as appropriate.

If this means more people use MTA techniques to reduce the number of
messages being scanned, then it's to their own and your advantage.

Yesterday, I handled 88,500 messages, but only 3,500 were scanned as the
other 85,000 were stopped by the use of RBL's, greylisting etc.

Peter


uhlar at fantomas

Nov 13, 2008, 1:51 AM

Post #25 of 25 (1829 views)
Permalink
Re: SURBL Usage Policy change [In reply to]

> > On 12.11.08 21:56, Peter Nitschke wrote:
> > > Read the entire sentence.
> > >
> > > "Please note that free public DNS queries for organizations smaller
> > > than 1,000 users or processing fewer than 250,000 messages per
> > > day is unchanged. "
>
> > > If you satisfy either requirement ( <1,000 users OR <250,000 mails) then
> > > you still get free access.

> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 13:00 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > In another mail to surbl list it was mentioned that any organization who has
> > more than >1000 users or processes >250000 messages per day, the feed must
> > be set up and charge paid.
> >
> > That meant you need to have <=1000 users AND process <=250000 messages daily
> > (average) to have free access.

On 12.11.08 15:29, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Hmm, that's not what http://www.surbl.org/usage-policy.html says about
> the FQS. It states OR there, so Peter's understanding seems to be
> correct.

Yes, however Jeff Chan's message posted to surbl-announce mailing list
stated differently. When I asked which logic chould be used, Jeff replied that
the one posted in the ML.

I haven't looked at the policy before now and I see it states something
else. However as Jeff said in the latter mail, number of users is the key...

...although they only can count number of queries from their point :)

> That's kind of fuzzy and mind boggling. ;) Anyway, I guess all this
> should be taken with a grain of salt. In particular "posts to lists"
> that accidentally might have changed the logic by not applying proper
> boolean logic when talking about the subject.

That's it...
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar [at] fantomas ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
"Where do you want to go to die?" [Microsoft]

SpamAssassin users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.