On Tuesday 31 May 2011 00:56, the following was written:
Its very simple,
If you know basic firewall concept, we will configure source NATing from
public IP address to original website private address in firewall. So when
any users from internet access my company website, they should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/31/2011 01:35 AM, Robert Spangler wrote:
On Tuesday 31 May 2011 00:56, the following was written:
Its very simple,
If you know basic firewall concept, we will configure source NATing from
public IP address to original website
In message 4de43e3e.2040...@chrysler.com, Kevin Darcy writes:
Normally I'd defer to your vastly greater knowledge and experience in
DNSSEC, but here in the U.S. we have a saying I'm from Missouri, which
is a roundabout way of expressing show me (Show Me being the
unofficial slogan of
Hello community,
I have a requirement to configure BIND 9.7.3 to allow queries from any
IPv4 address and only a specific IPv6 prefix.
The allow-query statement takes an address match list as argument, but
I'm not sure how I can specify 'any IPv4 host' without having to use
the 'any' keyword
On 31/05/11 09:28, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
This problem could be avoided by providing the same data, but differently
sorted, correct?
Not really. Client side sorting may take place (e.g. to comply with RFC
3484 policies in calls to getaddrinfo) and destroy any server-side sorting.
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 06:14:25PM +0530,
babu dheen babudh...@yahoo.co.in wrote
a message of 83 lines which said:
please note that i am not going to host my website in DNS server
You said the opposite before:
I am not sure why i do need to pay money to my ISP for hosting my
website on
On Tuesday 31 May 2011 02:25, the following was written:
Split DNS is when you have 2 DNS servers, one internal and the other
external. Internal server serves the clients internally and the External
services the people on the Internet. This setup is very easy as both
server hold the
I have a BIND 9.8.0-P2 server instance running on a production server. My
firewall is showing repeated attempts by named.exe to connect to IP
addresses in foreign countries on ports , 6667 and 6669 - common IRC
ports used by worms/trojans/zombies. Checking my named.exe file, it shows
that it
What problems do sites have that deploy both multiple views and
DNSSEC?
I read the Split-View DNSSEC Operation Practices draft, which
outlines a number of set-ups, generally citing disadvantages in the
area of administration, troubleshooting, and added complexity. But
it says these set-ups are
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:38:13AM -0700, Supersonic wrote:
I have a BIND 9.8.0-P2 server instance running on a production server. My
firewall is showing repeated attempts by named.exe to connect to IP addresses
in foreign countries on ports , 6667 and 6669 - common IRC ports used by
On 5/31/2011 2:38 PM, Supersonic wrote:
I have a BIND 9.8.0-P2 server instance running on a production server.
Doing what, exactly? Resolving internal names only? Resolving Internet
names? Acting as an authoritative server for internal clients? Internet
clients? Some combination of the
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 02:38:13PM -0400,
Supersonic wbpfs...@gmail.com wrote
a message of 38 lines which said:
My firewall is showing repeated attempts by named.exe to connect to
IP addresses in foreign countries on ports , 6667 and 6669
Not enough information to decide. For instance,
I have a BIND 9.8.0-P2 server instance running on a production server. My
firewall is showing repeated attempts by named.exe to connect to IP
addresses in foreign countries on ports , 6667 and 6669 - common IRC
ports used by worms/trojans/zombies.
Sounds like you're running an IRC bot...
On 05/31/11 20:38, Supersonic wrote:
I have a BIND 9.8.0-P2 server instance running on a production server.
My firewall is showing repeated attempts by named.exe to connect to IP
addresses in foreign countries on ports , 6667 and 6669 - common IRC
ports used by worms/trojans/zombies.
On May 31, 2011, at 3:22 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote:
On 5/31/2011 2:38 PM, Supersonic wrote:
I have a BIND 9.8.0-P2 server instance running on a production server.
Doing what, exactly? Resolving internal names only? Resolving Internet names?
Acting as an authoritative server for internal
Does anyone else find the bind-users list to be very slow?
webster.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) Tue, 31 May 2011 19:48:30 + -
webster.isc.org (webster.isc.org) Tue, 31 May 2011 20:52:09 +
Or is it just me seeing this?
W
On May 31, 2011, at 4:17 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On May
In message bf6f24e4-bb5c-4160-84df-baf591bed...@cornell.edu, John Wobus write
s:
What problems do sites have that deploy both multiple views and
DNSSEC?
Sign all views. You can decide whether to use the same keying
material or use differing keying material. If you use differing
keying
Yes, this message arrived in my Inbox 44 minutes after it was sent.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: bind-users-bounces+frnkblk=iname@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-bounces+frnkblk=iname@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of
Warren Kumari
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 4:59 PM
To: Warren
Yes, this message arrived in my Inbox 44 minutes after it was sent.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: bind-users-bounces+frnkblk=iname@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-bounces+frnkblk=iname@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of
Warren Kumari
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 4:59 PM
To: Warren
19 matches
Mail list logo
