I agree it actually is wise for them to offer a filtered service for those
that want it but opt in for sure
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023, 12:35 PM Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 10/27/23 7:49 AM, John Levine wrote:
> > But for obvious good reasons,
> > the vast majority of their customers don't
>
> I'd argue
this day in 2007 dr jun-ichiro (itojun) hagino died. a gentle soul, an
engineer's engineer, the ipv6 samurai, iab member, and fiat 500 lover.
the v6 stack you're running could have descended from his netbsd one.
http://www.itojun.org/
randy
>
> DNS isn’t the right place to attack this, IMHO.
>
...
> I’ve seen plenty of situations where the filters were just plain wrong and
> if the end user didn’t actively choose that filtration, the target site may
> be victimized without anyone knowing where to go to complain.
Not much different
If it’s such a reasonable default, why don’t any of the public resolvers (e.g.
1.1.1.1, 8.8.8.8, 9.9.9.9, etc.) do so?
Oh my, you walked right into that one.
https://www.quad9.net/service/threat-blocking/
https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-1-1-1-1-for-families/
I'm also surprised
It appears that said:
>* Owen DeLong [Sat 28 Oct 2023, 01:00 CEST]:
>>If it’s such a reasonable default, why don’t any of the public
>>resolvers (e.g. 1.1.1.1, 8.8.8.8, 9.9.9.9, etc.) do so?
>
>It's generally a service that's offered for money. Quad9 definitely
>offer it:
It appears that Michael Thomas said:
>> If you're one of the small minority of retail users that knows enough
>> about the technology to pick your own resolver, go ahead. But it's
>> a reasonable default to keep malware out of Grandma's iPad.
>
>How does this line up with DoH? Aren't they using
6 matches
Mail list logo
