Joe Abley wrote on 2023-11-10 23:40:
On 10 Nov 2023, at 21:26, Brian Dickson wrote:
Perhaps the DNSBL operators could individually or collectively operate
resolvers which do that exact thing?
I'm not sure why the answer isn't "MTAs should run local resolvers configured in
ways that
On Nov 10, 2023, at 21:02, John Levine wrote:
>
>>
>> A bit misleading subject :P
>
> It seems to have done the trick.
You need to trick people with exaggerations to read your emails? The industry
term for that is “clickbait”. I urge everyone not to engage in that in the IETF.
>
> DNSBLs
On 10 Nov 2023, at 21:26, Brian Dickson wrote:
> Perhaps the DNSBL operators could individually or collectively operate
> resolvers which do that exact thing?
I'm not sure why the answer isn't "MTAs should run local resolvers configured
in ways that best suit them".
This seems like obvious
we need Q-M, since without it NXDOMAIN is ambiguous. a full resolver
("recursive nameserver") who looks up wrong2.wrong1 deserves to know
that wrong1 doesn't exist so that it need not ask the root name servers
about wrong3.wrong1. whatever ambiguities may come from Q-M will have a
lower cost
John,
On Nov 10, 2023, at 11:55 AM, John Levine wrote:
> DNSBLs have been around a lot longer than QNAME minimization.
Not sure that’s relevant — I presume you’re not suggesting DNSBLs are a
predominant use of the DNS.
> They
> work(ed) fine without minimization and I don't think it is
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 10, 2023, at 12:02 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>
>
>>
>>> I'd like to write a draft that updates RFC 9156 by describing
>>> situations like this that caches could recognize and avoid useless
>>> churn, added to section 2.3 which already suggests special casing
I'd like to write a draft that updates RFC 9156 by describing
situations like this that caches could recognize and avoid useless
churn, added to section 2.3 which already suggests special casing
underscored labels.
I must confess that I do not see what is suggested in this thread
which is not
It appears that Paul Wouters said:
>On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, John R Levine wrote:
>
>> Subject: [DNSOP] QNAME minimization is bad
>>
>> Well, not always bad but sometimes.
>
>A bit misleading subject :P
It seems to have done the trick.
>> I'd like to
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 11:30 AM Denny Watson wrote:
> On 11/10/2023, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 02:45:08PM +,
> > Denny Watson wrote
> > a message of 50 lines which said:
> >
> >> One thing that is of interest to me; There appears to be no way for
> >> the
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 6:45 AM Denny Watson wrote:
> On 11/10/2023, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, John R Levine wrote:
> >
> >> Subject: [DNSOP] QNAME minimization is bad
> >>
> >> Well, not always bad but sometimes.
> >
> >
On 11/10/2023, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 02:45:08PM +,
Denny Watson wrote
a message of 50 lines which said:
One thing that is of interest to me; There appears to be no way for
the owner of the dataset being queried (they should understand what
exists in their
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 02:45:08PM +,
Denny Watson wrote
a message of 50 lines which said:
> One thing that is of interest to me; There appears to be no way for
> the owner of the dataset being queried (they should understand what
> exists in their zones better than anyone else) to signal
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 01:26:36PM +0100,
John R Levine wrote
a message of 39 lines which said:
> asking if anyone has
> thought about this problem:
The dnsop working group, may be :-) This issue is mentioned in RFC
9156, section 2.3, which documents ways to address it.
> I'd like to write
On 10Nov23, Paul Wouters apparently wrote:
> > I'd like to write a draft that updates RFC 9156 by describing situations
> > like this that caches could recognize and avoid useless churn, added to
> > section 2.3 which already suggests special casing underscored labels.
>
> Couldn't the RBL's add
On 11/10/2023, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, John R Levine wrote:
Subject: [DNSOP] QNAME minimization is bad
Well, not always bad but sometimes.
A bit misleading subject :P
I'd like to write a draft that updates RFC 9156 by describing
situations like this that caches could
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, John R Levine wrote:
Subject: [DNSOP] QNAME minimization is bad
Well, not always bad but sometimes.
A bit misleading subject :P
I'd like to write a draft that updates RFC 9156 by describing situations like
this that caches could recognize and avoid useless churn, added
Well, not always bad but sometimes.
A friend of mine who works on DNSBLs wrote yesterday (quite by
coincidence, unware that there's a meeting this week) asking if anyone has
thought about this problem: DNSBLs have the same form as rDNS, IPv4 names
all start with four labels containing digits,
17 matches
Mail list logo
