Rhesa Rozendaal wrote:
So here is what we'll do:
- Lower the ttl on all zones three days before the move
No, this isn't right. You must lower the TTL time at a bare minimum 2 *
(Current TTL) ahead of time. Why? Because nameservers out in the real
world will not even query your nameservers agai
Ward Willats wrote:
Yeah, everyone _should_ use AUTH (and heck, SSL), but for a boutique
server with few relayers, pop-before-smtp still works very well, thank
you, with no existing client configuration changes.
Anyone know of any good way to implement IMAP before relay for those of
us that left
Le dim 20/06/2004 à 08:26, Nate Duehr a écrit :
> Ward Willats wrote:
>
> > Yeah, everyone _should_ use AUTH (and heck, SSL), but for a boutique
> > server with few relayers, pop-before-smtp still works very well, thank
> > you, with no existing client configuration changes.
>
> Anyone know of
Hi,
there will be a demonstration against software patents at the LinuxTag in
Karlsruhe on thursday 24th of June. The demonstrators will meet at the
entrance to the exihibition area after the end of the exhibition at 6 'o
clock in the afternoon. We will walk to the marketplace that can be reach
On June 18, 2004 12:49 am, Nate Duehr wrote:
> No, this isn't right. You must lower the TTL time at a bare minimum 2 *
> (Current TTL) ahead of time. Why? Because nameservers out in the real
> world will not even query your nameservers again until the TTL has
> expired, meaning that if you chan
On Jun 20, 2004, at 9:19 AM, Fraser Campbell wrote:
On June 18, 2004 12:49 am, Nate Duehr wrote:
No, this isn't right. You must lower the TTL time at a bare minimum
2 *
(Current TTL) ahead of time. Why? Because nameservers out in the
real
world will not even query your nameservers again until
That's right for the case of bind using another bind as forwarder!
I mean asking the first bind or asking the forwarder at the same time
would result in the same TTL.
Don't know about other DNS server types.
Christian
- Original Message -
From: "Fraser Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Nate Duehr wrote:
Ward Willats wrote:
Yeah, everyone _should_ use AUTH (and heck, SSL), but for a boutique
server with few relayers, pop-before-smtp still works very well, thank
Anyone know of any good way to implement IMAP before relay for those of
us that left POP3 in the 80's where it belongs
(B
(B $BL$>5Bz9-9p"((B $B$4LBOG$JJ}$O:o=|$7$F$/[EMAIL PROTECTED](B
$BEv9-9p$rkM[;T;{ED#8!]#2(B
(B $BBeI=h$jCY$l$J$$$G$/[EMAIL PROTECTED](B
$B%S%8%M%9$NE4B'!'#1HVEEh$jCY$l$F$b#2HVEEh$jCY$l$k$J!*(B!
$B>pJs2=$N;~Be>[EMAIL PROTECTED](%M%k%.!<(B
$B$G$9!#(B5000$B1_$GLB$C$F$k5.J}!"(B
Rhesa Rozendaal wrote:
So here is what we'll do:
- Lower the ttl on all zones three days before the move
No, this isn't right. You must lower the TTL time at a bare minimum 2 *
(Current TTL) ahead of time. Why? Because nameservers out in the real
world will not even query your nameservers agai
Ward Willats wrote:
Yeah, everyone _should_ use AUTH (and heck, SSL), but for a boutique
server with few relayers, pop-before-smtp still works very well, thank
you, with no existing client configuration changes.
Anyone know of any good way to implement IMAP before relay for those of
us that left
Le dim 20/06/2004 à 08:26, Nate Duehr a écrit :
> Ward Willats wrote:
>
> > Yeah, everyone _should_ use AUTH (and heck, SSL), but for a boutique
> > server with few relayers, pop-before-smtp still works very well, thank
> > you, with no existing client configuration changes.
>
> Anyone know of
Hi,
there will be a demonstration against software patents at the LinuxTag in
Karlsruhe on thursday 24th of June. The demonstrators will meet at the
entrance to the exihibition area after the end of the exhibition at 6 'o
clock in the afternoon. We will walk to the marketplace that can be reach
On June 18, 2004 12:49 am, Nate Duehr wrote:
> No, this isn't right. You must lower the TTL time at a bare minimum 2 *
> (Current TTL) ahead of time. Why? Because nameservers out in the real
> world will not even query your nameservers again until the TTL has
> expired, meaning that if you chan
On Jun 20, 2004, at 9:19 AM, Fraser Campbell wrote:
On June 18, 2004 12:49 am, Nate Duehr wrote:
No, this isn't right. You must lower the TTL time at a bare minimum
2 *
(Current TTL) ahead of time. Why? Because nameservers out in the
real
world will not even query your nameservers again until
That's right for the case of bind using another bind as forwarder!
I mean asking the first bind or asking the forwarder at the same time
would result in the same TTL.
Don't know about other DNS server types.
Christian
- Original Message -
From: "Fraser Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Nate Duehr wrote:
Ward Willats wrote:
Yeah, everyone _should_ use AUTH (and heck, SSL), but for a boutique
server with few relayers, pop-before-smtp still works very well, thank
Anyone know of any good way to implement IMAP before relay for those of
us that left POP3 in the 80's where it belongs
(B
(B $BL$>5Bz9-9p"((B $B$4LBOG$JJ}$O:o=|$7$F$/[EMAIL PROTECTED](B
$BEv9-9p$rkM[;T;{ED#8!]#2(B
(B $BBeI=h$jCY$l$J$$$G$/[EMAIL PROTECTED](B
$B%S%8%M%9$NE4B'!'#1HVEEh$jCY$l$F$b#2HVEEh$jCY$l$k$J!*(B!
$B>pJs2=$N;~Be>[EMAIL PROTECTED](%M%k%.!<(B
$B$G$9!#(B5000$B1_$GLB$C$F$k5.J}!"(B
18 matches
Mail list logo
