I doubt it, but if anyone from their netops is on this list...
Please fix your DNS servers, I removed a _dmarc entry 6 days ago, its
24hr TTL expired, yes, 5 days ago, so why the hell do you still have
this record cached and using it.
(Today I have re-enabled it, completely invalid, a normal TXT
On Sun, 2013-09-29 at 03:53 -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
> > Please fix your DNS servers, I removed a _dmarc entry 6 days ago, its 24hr
> > TTL expired, yes, 5 days ago, so why the hell do you still have this record
> >
Just a quick followup
After reading Vernon's suggestion back when this thread was current, I
enacted TXT :v=DMARC1;p=none;pct=100:
finally, taken nearly a month, but they have stopped :)
On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 08:06 +1000, Noel Butler wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-09-29 at 03:53 -0400, Jim P
or email dns-operations-requ...@lists.dns-oarc.net
with subject of unsubscribe
On 24/12/2013 15:33, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> Sinisa,
>
> You will not be removed from this e-mailing list by sending "remove" in
> subject of your e-mail however you can visit below link to get yourself
> remov
only years after the most of rest of the world
but better late than not at all...
-
FWD MSG:
auDA has announced it will be introducing DNSSEC into the .au domain
space in an experimental capacity. Deployment on production servers wi
On 21/07/2014 06:11, Evan Hunt wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 01:04:26PM -0400, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Note that they are validators:
https://dns.watch/
Unlike what they claim, I find them quite slow, specially outside of
Europe.
84.200.69.80 and its associated IPv6 addy, does not resp
On 18/04/2015 10:11, Roland Dobbins wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2015, at 7:06, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> You snipped out the part of my message that explained the answer to that
>> question.
>
> I understood the answer, I've just seen enough examples of ACLs and firewall
> rules and so forth being bo
On 19/04/2015 00:15, Roland Dobbins wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2015, at 16:32, Noel Butler wrote:
>
>> and the problem would be identified and fixed much faster than if it was by
>> your assumptions.
>
> I'm not assuming anything; I'm reporting directly obs
On 19/04/2015 23:13, Roland Dobbins wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2015, at 19:22, Noel Butler wrote:
>
>> your "direct observed experience" is clearly different from mine, as
>> likely others.
>
> I'm pretty sure most everyone on this list has seen extended ou
ts own RR, he is the one
responsible for the massive push that saw it junked.
--
Kind Regards,
Noel Butler
This Email, including attachments, may contain legally
privileged
information, therefore remains confidential and subject to copyright
protected under internatio
On Sun, 2012-06-10 at 12:59 +0200, Jan-Piet Mens wrote:
> > If that's it, then would asking djb to change its behavior
>
> ROFL. Ask DJB to change its behavior? Good luck with that. ;-)
>
>
Indeed, since he publicly declared qmail open source and abandoned back
in, ohh, 2008 IIRC
(even
On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 18:36 -0300, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
> Em 13/07/2012, às 18:19:000, Jason Gurtz escreveu:
>
> > My parent is .com and in searching around I found a whole lot about what a
> > DS record is, but nil on the operational aspects of it.
> >
> > May a zone administrator transfer the
On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 21:02 -0300, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> Michele,
>
> If you ask customers if they need "DS record", they will say they don't. \
+1
If you ask your customers do you know what a DS record is, 95% will
think you're swearing.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 09:21 -0400, wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
> Noel Butler wrote on 07/14/2012 09:33:53 PM:
>
> > That list is far, and I mean far, from complete.
>
> And they ask for updates:
>
> "If your registrar currently accepts DS records, please send an e
On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 16:00 -0400, wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
> Noel Butler wrote on 07/16/2012 09:35:09 AM:
>
> > That doesnt surprise me, for many reasons I have advised against
> > using NS, have done for almost 10 years, mostly because of their
> > fraudulent, hosti
On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 16:03 -0500, Chris Boyd wrote:
> Anyone else seeing this? Or is it common knowledge I just tripped over?
>
> Was just looking into a DNS issue for a customer and noticed Google's DNS was
> reporting cache times of 9700+ seconds, despite the zone TTL being 3600
> seconds.
On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 10:43 +0800, Feng He wrote:
>
> And I have a question that, what is the good username for showing in the
> whois info for domain contact email?
> dnsad...@domain.com
> hostmas...@domain.com
Either of these, I think the latter is probably more common of the two.
sig
On Mon, 2013-02-25 at 12:52 -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> X has made one tradeoff that the customer didn't
The tradeoff is blocking open public DNS resolvers like 8.8.8.8
You could I guess spoof them for the exact same reason, but border
router blocking might be better, after all,
security ri
On Mon, 2013-02-25 at 19:17 -0500, Robert Edmonds wrote:
>
> yes, who knows what google is doing with all that data. they would
> never tell us that.
>
yes, just like they never "war drived" around the many countries that
have since fined them for doing so.
I take what they say with a grain
f the wrong hostname, in which case I'm
sure someone will chime in with the correct one :)
--
Regards,
Noel Butler
This Email, including attachments, may contain legally privileged
information, therefore at all times remains confidential and subject to
copyright protected under interna
without
interface: 127.0.0.2
___
I don't use unbound, but interface is strange, usually its 127.0.0.1 for
localhost, but maybe you have a reason for using that so likely nothing
to do with it.
--
Regards,
Noel Butler
This Email, including at
The list isn't running DMARC "list" mitigation settings that resolve
this issue, some lists run them, some don't.
--
Regards,
Noel Butler--- End Message ---
___
dns-operations mailing list
dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net
https://l
--- Begin Message ---
On 27/02/2024 10:47, Noel Butler via dns-operations wrote:
I stand corrected, it is running them.
You are using policy=none that's why nothing is happening.
mitigations apply IIRC only when using quarantine or reject policy.
--
Regards,
Noel Butler--- End Me
23 matches
Mail list logo
