, 2019 at 11:28 AM Kevin Darcy
wrote:
> [ Classification Level: PUBLIC ]
>
> Apologies if this sounds condescending, but I haven't seen RFC 1982
> mentioned in this thread so far.
>
> While that RFC may not be the last word on the acceptable values of
> SOA.SERIAL, in norm
[ Classification Level: PUBLIC ]
Apologies if this sounds condescending, but I haven't seen RFC 1982
mentioned in this thread so far.
While that RFC may not be the last word on the acceptable values of
SOA.SERIAL, in normal operation, it does contain some advice on how to
effectuate (or avoid) a
The "apex" terminology didn't come into vogue until later. Prior to that,
people talked about the "top" of a zone.
RFC 1034 Section 4.2.1 lays this out:
"In the data that makes up a zone, NS RRs are found at the top node of the
zone (and are authoritative)".
Admittedly "are found" doesn't sound
It should be pointed out that the Autodiscover subsystem of Microsoft
Office uses SRV in a very *degenerate* way. It ignores all fields other
than target. In my testing, I believe I also proved that it doesn't fail
over if presented multiple SRV RRs in a response. So, basically it's a
one-to-one
, after Section 3
already proclaimed a NULL MX
record can not be confused with an ordinary MX record. So it is
ordinary or isn't it? Maybe different adjectives should be used...
- Kevin
On 7/24/2014 11:10 PM, Mark Delany wrote:
On 24Jul14, Kevin Darcy allegedly wrote:
So
.
- Kevin
On 7/23/2014 10:00 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 53cfbb29.7040...@chrysler.com, Kevin Darcy writes:
Potentially dumb question: what does this magic meaning MX target
(.) offer, that a target resolving to a null address (0.0.0.0 and/or
::0) does not? No protocol or code changes required
Potentially dumb question: what does this magic meaning MX target
(.) offer, that a target resolving to a null address (0.0.0.0 and/or
::0) does not? No protocol or code changes required.
The null address does, after all, mean no service offered here. (Now,
if only load-balancer vendors could
. Can't get there.
I haven't gone back to see if the IPv4 null address has been similarly
clarified/redefined, because, who still uses IPv4 anyway? :-)
- Kevin
On 7/23/2014 9:54 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
Kevin Darcy k...@chrysler.com wrote:
Potentially
are of the negative consequences
of software that is slow or defective in their adoption of the new magic
meaning of root-name MX targets (i.e. pointless/doomed A/ queries of
the root name).
- Kevin
On 7/23/2014 12:16 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
Kevin Darcy
On 11/19/2012 9:41 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:05:43AM -0500,
Scott Schmit i.g...@comcast.net wrote
a message of 119 lines which said:
Perhaps you're thinking of this expired draft: draft-hoffman-server-has-tls?
Exactly! Thanks. This I-D is not
Todd Glassey wrote:
Daniel Senie wrote:
On Apr 14, 2009, at 2:54 AM, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Apr 13, 2009, at 7:01 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
If a application is doing the wrong thing w.r.t. SRV records then
fix the application. The root servers can handle a A and
queries for .. Most
William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Conrad
writes:
At his point, I will sit quietly for a while and let the WG comment
on whether they think that your proposed
alternative mitigation is adequate. On Friday,
Dean Anderson wrote:
A useful
technique for scan detection is a non-production special server.
Scanners show up in the logs; no one else does. Dnscache, BIND, and
PowerDNS all have necessary the logging capabilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot_(computing)
- Kevin
Peter Koch wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 03:27:15PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
i answered this on namedroppers, where the thread actually belongs.
at the risk of splitting hairs, the three different proposals did not all
strive to change the protocol. Also, this started out from the
Dean Anderson wrote:
It seems obvious, that when faced with significant problems in the
current approach, it is relevant to consider whether that approach still
makes sense.
Blindly continuing a practice merely because it was done before is the
essense of foolhardiness. [I suspect that should
JINMEI Tatuya / wrote:
At Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:30:46 -0500,
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Title : Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping
Author(s) : D. Senie, A. Sullivan
Filename:
16 matches
Mail list logo
