Quoting Gabe Stanton via Dng (dng@lists.dyne.org): > Of course using a local (or controlled by you) caching dns resolver > ENHANCES privacy.
You really should have stopped there. > That's not even a question and doesn't represent a > real argument against the likelihood that, in the case of everyone > running their own caching resolver, that second level nameservers would > end up being a very good source of info to match dns requests to ip > addresses, to be exploited just as any other big dns provider is likely > to do. Again, I get the impression, to be blunt, that you don't have a realistic understanding of how typical patterns of authoritative nameservice data and caching work. Spend some time logging and studying your recursive nameserver's traffic to TLD nameservers given caching and try to estimate how revealing that data is. You seem to think "very revealing". In which case, plainly there is no basis for further discussion, and I wish you good luck in your further endeavours. > I'm open to any information you have [...] Nope. You'll need to chew up someone else's time. > You made a case for another possibly good alternative for dns providers > as oppposed to opennic That's not what I said. > ...but I didn't hear any rebuttal to any of my > arguments in their favor. I'm sorry, but (1) I don't work for you, and (2) I clarified tnat _all_ I said was that outsourcing recursive DNS to OpenNIC recursive servers was a bad idea for the same reason outsourcing it to anyone else is. You ignored that, and are now wasting your time and mine. I am ending that. > So, here are the good points about opennic. Irrelevant to what I said. Which fact you are ignoring, and thus wasting my and everyone else's time. I am ending (at least) the former. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
