On 10/12/06 8:07 PM, "Jens Vagelpohl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - - I went in and made one minor correction to the foundation.zope.org
> record
>
> The data is now clean and consistent and it will just take
> propagation time to get that through to all users. When this has
> happened we can
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Oct 2006, at 19:51, Justizin wrote:
Justin, I volunteer to take over your DNS stewardship role.
Then do something. Improve the situation somehow.
You've got all the keys I've got.
It already has improved a lot:
- - the registrar DNS set
On 10/12/06, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Justizin wrote:
>> > This assumption really has nothing to do with what happened this week.
>>
>> I'm not convinced.
>>
> Then take over, Lennart. I do not care.
OK, I've seen this enough.
Justin, I volunteer to take over your DNS stewardsh
Justizin wrote:
> This assumption really has nothing to do with what happened this week.
I'm not convinced.
Then take over, Lennart. I do not care.
OK, I've seen this enough.
Justin, I volunteer to take over your DNS stewardship role.
I'm also more than happy to do what I can on the Apach
On 10/12/06, Jens Vagelpohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Oct 2006, at 10:05, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> But honestly, compare the likelyhood that all three of these would
> fail at one time, together with the increasing likelyhood than one
> serve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Oct 2006, at 13:57, Andrew Sawyers wrote:
Can we have only zoneedit as the registered nameservers? 3 out of
the 5
listed name servers at the registrar are wrong. We need this fixed
ASAP.
Just to close this out, Rob has now changed the
Can we have only zoneedit as the registered nameservers? 3 out of the 5
listed name servers at the registrar are wrong. We need this fixed ASAP.
Andrew
___
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web
FYI, there's a problem with your host Justizin:
> server ns1.zoneedit.com
Default server: ns1.zoneedit.com
Address: 207.234.248.200#53
> cvs.zope.org
Server: ns1.zoneedit.com
Address:207.234.248.200#53
Name: cvs.zope.org
Address: 63.240.213.173
> server ns.qutang.net
Default ser
On 10/12/06, Justizin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Servers failing will not cause problems, the only real risk would be tampering.
I was unclear, sorry.
What I ment to say is that things go wrong. Your statement "this
should not cause problems", is equivalent to "servers will not fail"
and my po
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Oct 2006, at 10:05, Lennart Regebro wrote:
But honestly, compare the likelyhood that all three of these would
fail at one time, together with the increasing likelyhood than one
server of them is misconfigured and starts disturbing the usage fo
On 10/12/06, Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/12/06, Justizin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It could cause problems, and that's why we aren't really using eight
> servers right now, but it should not cause problems.
Servers should not fail. This should not cause problems. But in
r
On 10/12/06, Justizin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It could cause problems, and that's why we aren't really using eight
servers right now, but it should not cause problems.
Servers should not fail. This should not cause problems. But in
reality, it will.
It is a
challenge, also, that our DNS is
On 10/12/06, Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just a couple of notes here.
Although zoneedit has been running fine for me for years without a
single problem, obviously it would be nice with some backup.
Preferably something with another ISP and located on like another
continent or some
On 10/12/06, Jens Vagelpohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Oct 2006, at 09:15, Justizin wrote:
> (a) I don't control the actual registrar records
>
> (b) Yes, these were listed in the zone itself as the NS, but noone
> should be doing lookups vi
Just a couple of notes here.
Although zoneedit has been running fine for me for years without a
single problem, obviously it would be nice with some backup.
Preferably something with another ISP and located on like another
continent or something. Two of these backups would be even better.
But ho
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Oct 2006, at 09:20, Chris Withers wrote:
Justizin wrote:
I'd love to see more backups once they have copies of the zone.
Why? zope.org has happily lived off two nameservers for years and
years...
All of a sudden, we "need" to have more
On 10/12/06, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Justizin wrote:
> I'd love to see more backups once they have copies of the zone.
Why? zope.org has happily lived off two nameservers for years and years...
All of a sudden, we "need" to have more backups, the upshot of which has
been people
Yanno, people used to pay $75 per half hour for this expertise.
.. and I am charging $3,000 for a server move / consolidation in the
range of what zope.org wants to see happen in the next few months.
Sometimes, even paying clients insist on the wrong approach, or think
that I am overcomplicat
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
It makes sense to have name servers in different physical locations and
on different networks in case one provider runs into trouble. The point
of contention is the number of slaves.
Right, which brings me back to my other point: why, when 2 server have
been fine for abo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Oct 2006, at 09:15, Justizin wrote:
(a) I don't control the actual registrar records
(b) Yes, these were listed in the zone itself as the NS, but noone
should be doing lookups via these servers, because ZoneEdit is not
authoritative for the
Justizin wrote:
I'd love to see more backups once they have copies of the zone.
Why? zope.org has happily lived off two nameservers for years and years...
All of a sudden, we "need" to have more backups, the upshot of which has
been people in europe getting served bad dns from ns.qutang.net :
On 10/12/06, Jens Vagelpohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Oct 2006, at 08:57, Justizin wrote:
> Anyway, everything except these hosts need to be removed from the
> rotation:
>
> ns1.zoneedit.com
> ns7.zoneedit.com
> ns.qutang.net
> ns*.zope.c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Oct 2006, at 08:57, Justizin wrote:
Anyway, everything except these hosts need to be removed from the
rotation:
ns1.zoneedit.com
ns7.zoneedit.com
ns.qutang.net
ns*.zope.com
Then I suggest you do that and end the current confusion in r
> On 12 Oct 2006, at 08:03, Justizin wrote:
> > This is wrong, most of these slaves never coordinated with me to
> > receive a copy of the zone. only ns.qutang.net has a copy.
> >
And this is my fault because ZoneEdit has these hosts listed as NS
records. I've removed them until they grab copi
On 10/12/06, Jens Vagelpohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Oct 2006, at 08:03, Justizin wrote:
> This is wrong, most of these slaves never coordinated with me to
> receive a copy of the zone. only ns.qutang.net has a copy.
>
> ns*.zope.com have s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Oct 2006, at 08:44, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 12 Oct 2006, at 08:03, Justizin wrote:
This is wrong, most of these slaves never coordinated with me to
receive a copy of the zone. only ns.qutang.net has a copy.
ns*.zope.com have semi-identica
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Oct 2006, at 08:03, Justizin wrote:
This is wrong, most of these slaves never coordinated with me to
receive a copy of the zone. only ns.qutang.net has a copy.
ns*.zope.com have semi-identical copies, but have not transferred the
latest zone
On 10/12/06, Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I think DNS is still (or again?) fishy.
Currently cvs.zope.org resolves to .171 for me (which should be 173).
That's what at least on of the community DNS servers tells me. Other
community DNS servers seem not to know anything about z
28 matches
Mail list logo
