On 01/15, Bill Owens wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 07:55:44PM -0500, Kevin Darcy wrote:
Loopback is anti-social; an apparent attempt to make the client
waste resources connecting to itself. In legal terms, one might call
this an attractive nuisance.
You're quite right; that's why I have
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 07:55:44PM -0500, Kevin Darcy wrote:
If the domain owner *really* feels that they have to publish *some*
address record for a particular name, but there is no available
service at that name, then the null or unspecified address (IPv4 =
0.0.0.0, IPv6 = ::0) is the
On 2014-01-12 10:04, Chris Thompson wrote:
On Jan 11 2014, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
[...snip...]
(2) There is no requirement that a domain name refer to the Web site
for that domain. I personally don't like that (for no special
reason), and neither apparently does the owner of this domain, who
On Jan 14 2014, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On 2014-01-12 10:04, Chris Thompson wrote:
[...]
That would be more plausible if www.p3net.net actually resolved to
something, rather than giving NXDOMAIN ...
How interesting. From here I see (and saw before I posted):
;; ANSWER SECTION:
Joseph S D Yao j...@tux.org wrote:
On 2014-01-12 10:04, Chris Thompson wrote:
That would be more plausible if www.p3net.net actually resolved to
something, rather than giving NXDOMAIN ...
How interesting. From here I see (and saw before I posted):
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.p3net.net.
From: Tony Finch d...@dotat.at
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.p3net.net. 0 IN A 199.101.28.20
That IP address indicates that your ISP is lying to you. It belongs to
Skye By Nominum which is a cloud DNS service. I guess this is Skye
Search
since that sounds like a rent-seeking scheme
If the domain owner *really* feels that they have to publish *some*
address record for a particular name, but there is no available service
at that name, then the null or unspecified address (IPv4 = 0.0.0.0,
IPv6 = ::0) is the appropriate value to put there.
Loopback is anti-social; an
On 2014-01-14 09:56, Chris Thompson as IP Register wrote:
...
199.101.28.20 seems to be search.dnsassist.verizon.net. Are you
sure that the nameservers you are using aren't doing friendly
rewriting of NXDOMAIN responses for you?
...
Ack. Good thing you can't see how embarrassed I'm blushing.
On Jan 11 2014, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
(2) There is no requirement that a domain name refer to the Web
site for that domain. I personally don't like that (for no special
reason), and neither apparently does the owner of this domain, who
forces people to go to the trouble of typing in
On 1/10/14, 8:36 PM, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
There seems to be a pile of misconceptions here.
Joseph,
1. No one from this list that answered to my original question actually showed
any degree of confusion, (including myself). There were only observations on
the subject, nothing more...
2. All
On 01/13/14 03:43, Barry Margolin wrote:
In article mailman.2022.1389603219.20661.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
On Jan 11 2014, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
(2) There is no requirement that a domain name refer to the Web
site for that domain. I
On Jan 11 2014, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
[...snip...]
(2) There is no requirement that a domain name refer to the Web site
for that domain. I personally don't like that (for no special reason),
and neither apparently does the owner of this domain, who forces people
to go to the trouble of
I have an issue happening here. I actually do have a vague idea what it is but
I am not real sure how is happening and how to avoid it. I was doing a research
the other day and landed on this domain;
p3net.net
I found a little strange when I logged into this domain because rather than
seeing
On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Eduardo Bonsi beart...@pacbell.net wrote:
I have an issue happening here. I actually do have a vague idea what it is
but I am not real sure how is happening and how to avoid it. I was doing a
research the other day and landed on this domain;
p3net.net
Yes,
On 2014-01-10 12:25, Alan Clegg wrote:
On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Eduardo Bonsi beart...@pacbell.net wrote:
I have an issue happening here. I actually do have a vague idea what it is but
I am not real sure how is happening and how to avoid it. I was doing a research
the other day and
From: Alan Clegg a...@clegg.com
Yes, it seems that they have an A record for that label that
provides the IP address 127.0.0.1.
You probably want to ask the owner of the zone about this, as I?m
not sure what the community can do about it.
They have an MX record, so perhaps the domain is
On 2014-01-10 12:36, wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
From: Alan Clegg a...@clegg.com
Yes, it seems that they have an A record for that label that
provides the IP address 127.0.0.1.
You probably want to ask the owner of the zone about this, as I?m
not sure what the community can do about it.
They have
-Original Message-
From: Dave Warren da...@hireahit.com
Date: Friday, January 10, 2014 at 15:47
To: Bind Users bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: Sites that points their A Record to localhost
On 2014-01-10 12:36, wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
From: Alan Clegg a...@clegg.com
Yes, it seems
Thanks everyone for the input on this matter!
Dave Warren said:
...And less A records if they don't intend to do anything but email. But
it's an imperfect world.
No doubt it is! Like I said, it is not a big deal! Is not that people are able
to re-route anything. That just happens because my
On 01/10, Eduardo Bonsi wrote:
I know how it is happening and my concern was if that could generate
any technical or security problems on my site.
no
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
On 2014-01-10 15:01, Eduardo Bonsi wrote:
...
It seems like they have their domain configuration A Record pointed
to the localhost. We all know that the localhost is not routable
outside of the internet. Therefore I am sure their website cannot
resolve out of the 127.0.0.1.
In addition to that,
21 matches
Mail list logo
