Tony Finch wrote:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, Ben Laurie wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, Ted Lemon wrote:
Paul's comment (the first of the three articles you quoted) implies
that secure NXDOMAIN is not a feature of Ohta-san's proposal. That
seems like a bit of a problem, because fake d
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, Ben Laurie wrote:
> Tony Finch wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, Ted Lemon wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul's comment (the first of the three articles you quoted) implies
> > > that secure NXDOMAIN is not a feature of Ohta-san's proposal. That
> > > seems like a bit of a problem, because
Tony Finch wrote:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, Ted Lemon wrote:
Paul's comment (the first of the three articles you quoted) implies that
secure NXDOMAIN is not a feature of Ohta-san's proposal. That seems like a
bit of a problem, because fake domains are definitely a useful phishing tool.
As far as
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> Paul's comment (the first of the three articles you quoted) implies that
> secure NXDOMAIN is not a feature of Ohta-san's proposal. That seems like a
> bit of a problem, because fake domains are definitely a useful phishing tool.
As far as I can tell fro
On Aug 10, 2008, at 5:51 AM, Andras Salamon wrote:
An alternative was proposed by Masataka Ohta around 1995. It did not
progress, but maybe it is time to trawl the archives and revisit it?
Paul's comment (the first of the three articles you quoted) implies
that secure NXDOMAIN is not a featu
On Aug 10, 2008, at 4:24 PM, Joe Baptista wrote:
Are there any configuration changes that can be made to bind to
force it to only use TCP as opposed to UDP?
Ask bind-users
Roy
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/
Are there any configuration changes that can be made to bind to force it to
only use TCP as opposed to UDP?
regards
joe baptista
--
Joe Baptista
www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
The future of the Internet is Open, Transpare
On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 04:33:55PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> In general, for all those people who claim DNSSEC is not the solution, I
> have a few questions
>
> 1) What is more broken with DNSSEC then on DNS?
> 2) If DNSSEC is flawed, where is a better alternative?
An alternative was proposed
