> From: abang <[email protected]> > >>> "..It seems your nameservers don't agree on the SOA serial number!..." > > > > I wouldn't put too much stock in what http://viewdns.info/ says > > about anything... > > Yes of course. But in this case it is true.
Never mind that given last night's circus, conflicts among serial numbers for one of the affected domains don't seem surprising. The fact that like all of the web DNS diagnosticians I've seen over the years, they are unable to get every little detail wrong is not unexpected, exculpatory, or an excuse to harm the less experienced or skeptical by pointing at whatever they say with anything except derision. The web DNS tests are like the tabliods. It's good read to them for breaking clues that can then be checked, but mentioning them as a primary source does nothing good for one's reputation. > $ dig +short @ns1.linkedin.com linkedin.com. soa > ns1.linkedin.com. hostmaster.linkedin.com. 2013061316 3600 600 604800 60 > $ dig +short @ns1.p43.dynect.net. linkedin.com. soa > ns1.p43.dynect.net. hostmaster.linkedin.com. 2013061801 3600 600 604800 60 Instead of pointing to an established source of misinformation and so sowing future confusion, angst, and errors among the less experience, that could have been said from the start. It is more authoritative, verifiable, and contains more information that the viewdns.info advertising bait. Vernon Schryver [email protected] _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
