In message <4e2fea67.7080...@agenda.si>, Danilo Godec writes:
> On 07/27/2011 10:31 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 09:59:32AM +0200,
> > Danilo Godec wrote
> > a message of 247 lines which said:
> >
> >> Weirdness number 2 - using dig directly with their servers wo
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:31:30AM +0200,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote
a message of 34 lines which said:
> 1) It means you are vulnerable to Kaminsky-style cache poisoning. In
> 2011, 'query-source port 53;' should have disappeared a long time
> ago.
For the record, there are still around 1 % of
On 07/27/2011 10:31 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 09:59:32AM +0200,
Danilo Godec wrote
a message of 247 lines which said:
Weirdness number 2 - using dig directly with their servers works:
Nothing weird here: dig does not behave like the BIND resolver. It
does not
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 09:59:32AM +0200,
Danilo Godec wrote
a message of 247 lines which said:
> Weirdness number 2 - using dig directly with their servers works:
Nothing weird here: dig does not behave like the BIND resolver. It
does not use EDNS at all by default, it does not use the same
Hi,
I'm running three DNS servers (1 master, 2 slaves) running bind 9.7.3,
hosting about 150 domains, while also providing DNS service for my network.
Recently a customer complained that they cannot send an email (they use
my SMTP server) to a specific domain 'rabobank.com' - Postfix logged
5 matches
Mail list logo