On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 08:45:17PM -0600, Brian Hartvigsen wrote:
> This is based on the information at
> https://docs.umbrella.com/umbrella-api/docs/identifying-dns-traffic and
> https://docs.umbrella.com/umbrella-api/docs/identifying-dns-traffic2 . Using
> --umbrella by itself will enable Remo
Hey Simon,
On Tue, 2021-04-06 at 23:58 +0100, Simon Kelley wrote:
> On 06/04/2021 23:18, Simon Kelley wrote:
>
> >
> > I think we should try something like your patch but remove the
> > configurablilty, and limit the time to 1-2 seconds.
> >
>
> It's there. tagged as 2.85rc3
Seen, tested, it
Full Disclosure: I am an employee of Cisco who works on the Cisco Umbrella
infrastructure team.
Submitting this following a PR attempt to pi-hole/FTL (
https://github.com/pi-hole/FTL/pull/1096 ).
___
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@list
This is based on the information at
https://docs.umbrella.com/umbrella-api/docs/identifying-dns-traffic and
https://docs.umbrella.com/umbrella-api/docs/identifying-dns-traffic2 . Using
--umbrella by itself will enable Remote IP reporting. This can not be used for
any policy filtering in Cisco U
Bump.
From: Dnsmasq-discuss On
Behalf Of Donald Muller
Sent: Saturday, April 3, 2021 11:27 PM
To: dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
Subject: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Can only have one servers-file in config file
I had two 'conf-file=' entries in my dnsmasq.conf file that pointed to files
that c
On 06/04/2021 23:18, Simon Kelley wrote:
>
> I think we should try something like your patch but remove the
> configurablilty, and limit the time to 1-2 seconds.
>
It's there. tagged as 2.85rc3
2.85 will be soon.
Simon.
___
Dnsmasq-discuss mailin
On 06/04/2021 19:49, Dominik Derigs wrote:
> Hey Simon,
>
> your patch surely makes sense.
>
> On Mon, 2021-04-05 at 21:38 +0100, Simon Kelley wrote:
>> Except that this all started because some clients don't retry from the
>> same ID/source port and treating them as a new query that can be
>>
Hey Simon,
your patch surely makes sense.
On Mon, 2021-04-05 at 21:38 +0100, Simon Kelley wrote:
> Except that this all started because some clients don't retry from the
> same ID/source port and treating them as a new query that can be
> answered when the existing query for the same name complet
