Hi,
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:23:29AM -0400, Selva Nair wrote:
> It was agreed to move this forward by looking into the approaches
> suggested by Selva, and by giving him feedback.
>
> So what is the consensus? Should we support DNS through all tunnels for
> which block-outside-dns is specified
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:23:29AM -0400, Selva Nair wrote:
> It was agreed to move this forward by looking into the approaches
> suggested by Selva, and by giving him feedback.
>
> So what is the consensus? Should we support DNS through all tunnels for
> which block-outside-dns is specified
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Selva Nair wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:41 PM, ValdikSS wrote:
>
>> This is known issue (for me), and it was superficially discussed on IRC
>> at some point. It wasn't considered significant to
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Selva Nair wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:41 PM, ValdikSS wrote:
>
>> This is known issue (for me), and it was superficially discussed on IRC
>> at some point. It wasn't considered significant to
This is known issue (for me), and it was superficially discussed on IRC at some
point. It wasn't considered significant to implement block-outside-dns for
multiple connections.
Is there ahy reason to use block-outside-dns on multiple connections? Just
asked supergregg (bug reporter), he