On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 08:20:08AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 10:43:27PM +0100, Remi Locherer wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:53:28PM +0100, Florian Obser wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:45:37PM +0100, Florian Obser wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 10:43:27PM +0100, Remi Locherer wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:53:28PM +0100, Florian Obser wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:45:37PM +0100, Florian Obser wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:35:07PM +0100, Remi Locherer wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:53:28PM +0100, Florian Obser wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:45:37PM +0100, Florian Obser wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:35:07PM +0100, Remi Locherer wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 08:14:04PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > So
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:45:37PM +0100, Florian Obser wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:35:07PM +0100, Remi Locherer wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 08:14:04PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > So here's a new diff that incorporates the bug fix mentioned plus
> > > debug
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:35:07PM +0100, Remi Locherer wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 08:14:04PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > So here's a new diff that incorporates the bug fix mentioned plus
> > debug printf line changes suggested by Stuart.
> >
> > Please note that this is a
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 08:14:04PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So here's a new diff that incorporates the bug fix mentioned plus
> debug printf line changes suggested by Stuart.
>
> Please note that this is a diff on top of very recent current, i.e.
> florian's work he committed today.
Hi,
So here's a new diff that incorporates the bug fix mentioned plus
debug printf line changes suggested by Stuart.
Please note that this is a diff on top of very recent current, i.e.
florian's work he committed today. That means that you need to be
up-to-date (including a recent libc update
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:04:07AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> Writing as a note to myself to check later when I have more time as
> much as anything, is there a hold-off on re-checking if there is a
> cert failure (or indeed if DoT port isn't answered), or does it
> re-check for every query
On 2019/10/31 10:18, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 08:51:00PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> > - unwind doesn't have keepalives, so it's a new TCP session and TLS
> > handshake for every query, which can be bad in some cases (and could get
> > expensive with metered mobile
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 08:51:00PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2019/10/30 15:57, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I got *very* little feedback on this request for testing.
> >
> > If not enough enough testing is done, I'll either abandon the diff or
> > commit it as-is, introducing
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:46:36PM +0100, Remi Locherer wrote:
> Hi Otto,
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 03:57:15PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I got *very* little feedback on this request for testing.
> >
> > If not enough enough testing is done, I'll either abandon the diff or
>
Hi Otto,
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 03:57:15PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got *very* little feedback on this request for testing.
>
> If not enough enough testing is done, I'll either abandon the diff or
> commit it as-is, introducing bugs that could have been prevented. Both
> are
On 2019/10/30 15:57, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got *very* little feedback on this request for testing.
>
> If not enough enough testing is done, I'll either abandon the diff or
> commit it as-is, introducing bugs that could have been prevented. Both
> are not good. So get going!
>
>
Hi Otto,
* Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got *very* little feedback on this request for testing.
>
> If not enough enough testing is done, I'll either abandon the diff or
> commit it as-is, introducing bugs that could have been prevented. Both
> are not good. So get going!
I have your diff
Hi,
I got *very* little feedback on this request for testing.
If not enough enough testing is done, I'll either abandon the diff or
commit it as-is, introducing bugs that could have been prevented. Both
are not good. So get going!
-Otto
On 2019/10/24 11:48, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> The downside of using your own resolver (e.g. by running unbound on
> your laptop), its traffic is more easily tied to a specific user.
> There's an anonymizing power in using a bigger (shared) resolver (with
> the downside that you then give your
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 12:24:22PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:27:24AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>
> >
> > > The purpose of unwind is to provide secure DNS services even when
> > > the available nameservers are broken or filtered like in many hotels.
> > > To do
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:27:24AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>
> > The purpose of unwind is to provide secure DNS services even when
> > the available nameservers are broken or filtered like in many hotels.
> > To do that, it prefers DNSSEC whenever possible and changes to do
> > resolving by
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:27:24AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
|
| > The purpose of unwind is to provide secure DNS services even when
| > the available nameservers are broken or filtered like in many hotels.
| > To do that, it prefers DNSSEC whenever possible and changes to do
| > resolving by
> The purpose of unwind is to provide secure DNS services even when
> the available nameservers are broken or filtered like in many hotels.
> To do that, it prefers DNSSEC whenever possible and changes to do
> resolving by itself if needed.
>
> DNSSEC only offers integrity and authenticity. To
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 02:40:53PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The patch below add opportunistic DoT to unwind. Some background
> info:
>
> The purpose of unwind is to provide secure DNS services even when
> the available nameservers are broken or filtered like in many hotels.
> To
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 02:40:53PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> [1] https://doh.powerdns.org/doh/privacy.html
Should be https://powerdns.org/doh/privacy.html
Hi,
The patch below add opportunistic DoT to unwind. Some background
info:
The purpose of unwind is to provide secure DNS services even when
the available nameservers are broken or filtered like in many hotels.
To do that, it prefers DNSSEC whenever possible and changes to do
resolving by
23 matches
Mail list logo
