Dear Wander,
Please stop this traffic!
Thanks
Best Regards,
Grace INGABIRE
ccTLD SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR
RICTA
CELL:+250788424148
-Original Message-
From: Matthäus Wander [mailto:matthaeus.wan...@uni-due.de]
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 4:11 AM
To: Mark Andrews
Cc: Grace Ingabire; dn
In message
, Mike Hale writes:
> This seems pretty straight forward.
>
> Use your standard bash tools to modify the file when necessary, then
> you should simply be able to call rndc reload ZONENAME in the script.
Though why one would want to do this rather than just updating the
zone using DDN
This seems pretty straight forward.
Use your standard bash tools to modify the file when necessary, then
you should simply be able to call rndc reload ZONENAME in the script.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Mihamina Rakotomandimby
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I did not catch what you're trying to achie
Hello,
I did not catch what you're trying to achieve.
Please give more details.
On 2013-07-23 08:25, Manish Rane wrote:
Hi Folks,
Wondering if I can edit/change the static zone file as a result of
certain bash script. Well, I am trying to write a script which will
monitor the server on certa
Hi Folks,
Wondering if I can edit/change the static zone file as a result of certain
bash script. Well, I am trying to write a script which will monitor the
server on certain ports and it if fails to connect to the server it will
delete or add the entry from zone file so that traffic will be route
In message <51ede640.8040...@uni-due.de>, =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Matth=E4us_Wander?= w
rites:
> * Mark Andrews [2013-07-23 03:36]:
> > How do you do that with a broken delegation? Did you think to ask
> > before delegating a zone to a zone not configured for it? What
> > does your Chancellor think abo
* Mark Andrews [2013-07-23 03:36]:
> How do you do that with a broken delegation? Did you think to ask
> before delegating a zone to a zone not configured for it? What
> does your Chancellor think about using uninformed third parties for
> experiments like this?
The method is described here (Fi
In message <51edcfad.5030...@uni-due.de>, =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Matth=E4us_Wander?= w
rites:
>
> Hi,
>
> Grace Ingabire writes:
> >
> > Does anyone know what is going on here? As I can't understand why we do
> > receive a lot of these messages in our logs.
> >
> > Jul 22 14:18:21 ns1 named[13045]: clien
In message , Stanley We
ilnau writes:
> I have just set up DNSSEC on bind 9.9.3. I had set up the zone and put a DS
> record out at the registrar. Several days later I found that I had set up th
> e keys incorrectly using only NSEC verses NSEC3 so i changed the keys. I del
> eted the old keys
Hi,
Grace Ingabire writes:
>
> Does anyone know what is going on here? As I can't understand why we do
> receive a lot of these messages in our logs.
>
> Jul 22 14:18:21 ns1 named[13045]: client 200.222.123.108#43576: query
> (cache) 'www.minghui.org.s210.ip4.verteiltesysteme.net/A/IN' denied
>
>
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 08:50 -0500, Barry S. Finkel wrote:
> > This was discussed here already, and imho this is anti-spf bullshit like
> > all those "spf breaks forwarding" FUD. The SPF RR is already here and is
> > preferred over TXT that is generik RR type, unlike SPF.
>
>
> It is not Fear, Un
s210.ip4.verteiltesysteme.net has been delegated to you.
See the address records in the referral.
Complain to the parent zone administrators if this is in
error otherwise configure your system to serve
s210.ip4.verteiltesysteme.net.
P.S. It would h
On Jul 22, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Barry S. Finkel wrote:
> On 7/22/2013 11:17 AM, bind-users-requ...@lists.isc.org wrote:
This was discussed here already, and imho this is anti-spf bullshit like
>>all those "spf breaks forwarding" FUD. The SPF RR is already here and is
>>preferred over
I have just set up DNSSEC on bind 9.9.3. I had set up the zone and put a DS
record out at the registrar. Several days later I found that I had set up the
keys incorrectly using only NSEC verses NSEC3 so i changed the keys. I deleted
the old keys and DS record, and had bind resign everything a
On 7/22/2013 11:17 AM, bind-users-requ...@lists.isc.org wrote:
This was discussed here already, and imho this is anti-spf bullshit like
>>all those "spf breaks forwarding" FUD. The SPF RR is already here and is
>>preferred over TXT that is generik RR type, unlike SPF.
On 22.07.13 08:50, Barry S.
I only mentioned rfc1918 as I am directly hosting them, versus my
upstream pointing cnames at me for other blocks. I didn't expect
anything different about them.
I thought, and it worked in the past (2008/2009 perhaps), that having
the full cidr notation and such in the named.conf files you
On 22.07.13 12:29, Ryan Pavely wrote:
I always thought I had to break up the CIDR's into the proper blocks
so then my downstream customer can slave that partial zone. I don't
want them slaving 10.10.1/24... etc.. So to do that you break up the
block into all its parts, each with an origin, ttl
In article ,
Ryan Pavely wrote:
> So that would suggest any time any block > a /24 is hosted you must
> actually host the parent zone, pointing to the larger cidr, and then
> have your normal files for each cider in that block.
Of course. How else do you expect DNS to figure out that it shoul
In article ,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >>This was discussed here already, and imho this is anti-spf bullshit like
> >>all those "spf breaks forwarding" FUD. The SPF RR is already here and is
> >>preferred over TXT that is generik RR type, unlike SPF.
>
> On 22.07.13 08:50, Barry S. Finkel
Ryan Pavely
Net Access Corporation
http://www.nac.net/
On 7/22/2013 11:00 AM, Barry Margolin wrote:
In article ,
Ryan Pavely wrote:
Ok. What am I doing wrong? As far as I know this has worked for years
and sometime, weeks, months, years, ago it stopped.
This is for doing > /24 (
This was discussed here already, and imho this is anti-spf bullshit like
all those "spf breaks forwarding" FUD. The SPF RR is already here and is
preferred over TXT that is generik RR type, unlike SPF.
On 22.07.13 08:50, Barry S. Finkel wrote:
It is not Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt that "SPF br
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, Ryan Pavely wrote:
Ryan Pavely
Net Access Corporation
http://www.nac.net/
So that would suggest any time any block > a /24 is hosted you must actually
host the parent zone, pointing to the larger cidr, and then have your normal
files for each cider in that block.
In article ,
Ryan Pavely wrote:
> Ok. What am I doing wrong? As far as I know this has worked for years
> and sometime, weeks, months, years, ago it stopped.
>
> This is for doing > /24 (greater in cidr smaller in size)
> Example: we have a /25 that we host... and another /25 we host.. so we
Ok. What am I doing wrong? As far as I know this has worked for years
and sometime, weeks, months, years, ago it stopped.
This is for doing > /24 (greater in cidr smaller in size)
Example: we have a /25 that we host... and another /25 we host.. so we
split it up into smaller files unless we o
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:21:51 +0200
From: "Grace Ingabire"
Dear Team,
Does anyone know what is going on here? As I can't understand why we do
receive a lot of these messages in our logs.
Jul 22 14:18:21 ns1 named[13045]: client 200.222.123.108#43576: query
(cache) 'www.minghui.org.s210
On 07/22/13 20:21, Grace Ingabire
wrote:
Dear Team,
Does anyone know what is going on here? As
I can’t understand why we do receive a lot of these messages
in our logs.
Jul
This was discussed here already, and imho this is anti-spf bullshit like
all those "spf breaks forwarding" FUD. The SPF RR is already here and is
preferred over TXT that is generik RR type, unlike SPF.
It is not Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt that "SPF breaks forwarding".
SPF *DOES* break forwa
It looks like those clients are trying to query your DNS server for
www.minghui.org.s210.ip4.verteiltesysteme.net and are being denied.
Steve
On 22 July 2013 13:21, Grace Ingabire wrote:
> Dear Team,
>
> ** **
>
> Does anyone know what is going on here? As I can’t understand why we do
> re
Dear Team,
Does anyone know what is going on here? As I can't understand why we do
receive a lot of these messages in our logs.
Jul 22 14:18:21 ns1 named[13045]: client 200.222.123.108#43576: query
(cache) 'www.minghui.org.s210.ip4.verteiltesysteme.net/A/IN' denied
Jul 22 14:18:21 ns1 name
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
It's exactly as it says...
Instead of ... TXT "SPF ..."
You now do
... SPF "SPF ..."
On 22.07.13 11:26, G.W. Haywood wrote:
Caution! The SPF record type is near enough dead. See in particular
RFC6686 paragraph 5.6; paragraph 6.2; and Appendix A
On 07/21/13 17:55, Ejaz wrote:
I have similar problem recently.
Ejaz,
I think your server can resolve the domain name correctly because it's
resolv.conf set to a public dns server, try to resolve by itself and see
what happen.
About two month ago, my dns server have the similar problem on
Hi there,
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
It's exactly as it says...
Instead of
... TXT "SPF ..."
You now do
... SPF "SPF ..."
Caution! The SPF record type is near enough dead. See in particular
RFC6686 paragraph 5.6; paragraph 6.2; and Appendix A point 4.
--
73,
Ged.
__
32 matches
Mail list logo
