In message <83452cbbe5c3c5439212c8a56346b...@mail.dessus.com>, "Keith Medcalf"
writes:
> > As an aside, you may want to fix your DNS, as some mail receivers don't
> > like this:
>
> > $ dig -x 72.249.91.101 +short
> > static.serversandhosting.com.
> > $ dig a static.serversandhosting.com +short
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
> What is really meant to be said is that MTA's which require RFC compliance
> won't talk to you. Running an MTA which requires minimal RFC compliance
> (particularly in respect of DNS configuration) eliminates 98% of spam.
I wish it were
> As an aside, you may want to fix your DNS, as some mail receivers don't
> like this:
> $ dig -x 72.249.91.101 +short
> static.serversandhosting.com.
> $ dig a static.serversandhosting.com +short
> 72.249.3.27
What is really meant to be said is that MTA's which require RFC compliance
won't talk
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:09:24PM +1100, Jay Mitchell wrote:
> On 18/10/2012, at 7:44 AM, Nicolai wrote:
> > I assume you mean stock djbdns doesn't support ip6, because it does
> > indeed support records.
>
> Actually, it doesn't, as you so kindly pointed out. It does WITH a patch.
No.
Apologies for the empty reply, mobile typo machine at work :(
On 18/10/2012, at 7:44 AM, Nicolai wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 03:35:11AM +, Joseph Anthony Pasquale Holsten
> wrote:
>
>> First off, I'm using djbdns internally and it doesn't support
>> records. So we really aren't
On 18/10/2012, at 7:44 AM, Nicolai wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 03:35:11AM +, Joseph Anthony Pasquale Holsten
> wrote:
>
>> First off, I'm using djbdns internally and it doesn't support
>> records. So we really aren't using it internally.
>
> I assume you mean stock djbdns doesn't
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 09:45:09PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On 10/16/12, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> First off, I'm using djbdns internally and it doesn't support
> >> records. So we really aren't using it internally.
> > if the clutch in my car is broken, should i stop using vehicles?
> > dump
On 10/16/12, Randy Bush wrote:
>> First off, I'm using djbdns internally and it doesn't support
>> records. So we really aren't using it internally.
> if the clutch in my car is broken, should i stop using vehicles?
> dump djbdns or get some diehard to tell you how to fix it.
Ah, but the clu
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 03:35:11AM +, Joseph Anthony Pasquale Holsten wrote:
> First off, I'm using djbdns internally and it doesn't support
> records. So we really aren't using it internally.
I assume you mean stock djbdns doesn't support ip6, because it does
indeed support records
In article <2801f5f8-b8e2-4a9f-9a89-02d7783cc...@josephholsten.com> you write:
>I want to like IPv6. I do. But I'm seriously considering turning off
>IPv6 support from our servers.
>
>First off, I'm using djbdns internally and it doesn't support
>records. So we really aren't using it internall
On 17 Oct 2012, at 5:35 AM, Joseph Anthony Pasquale Holsten
wrote:
> I want to like IPv6. I do. But I'm seriously considering turning off IPv6
> support from our servers.
>
> First off, I'm using djbdns internally and it doesn't support records.
> So we really aren't using it internally.
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Joseph Anthony Pasquale Holsten wrote:
First off, I'm using djbdns internally and it doesn't support
records. So we really aren't using it internally.
Sounds like a self-inflicted wound. You have alternatives.
I'm _this_ close to turning IPv6 off entirely. Anyone wa
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:35:11 -0700, Joseph Anthony Pasquale Holsten
wrote:
I want to like IPv6. I do. But I'm seriously considering turning off
IPv6 support from our servers.
First off, I'm using djbdns internally and it doesn't support
records. So we really aren't using it intern
In message <2801f5f8-b8e2-4a9f-9a89-02d7783cc...@josephholsten.com>, Joseph Ant
hony Pasquale Holsten writes:
> I want to like IPv6. I do. But I'm seriously considering turning off
> IPv6 support from our servers.
>
> First off, I'm using djbdns internally and it doesn't support
> records. S
On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 21:59 -0600, Jima wrote:
> FWIW, DJB's public take on IPv6 can be found here:
> http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html .
After a quick read, it seems that that statement completely fails to
consider dual stack as a transition mechanism.
Regards, K.
--
> First off, I'm using djbdns internally and it doesn't support
> records. So we really aren't using it internally.
if the clutch in my car is broken, should i stop using vehicles?
dump djbdns or get some diehard to tell you how to fix it.
randy
On 2012-10-16 21:35, Joseph Anthony Pasquale Holsten wrote:
I want to like IPv6. I do. But I'm seriously considering turning off IPv6
support from our servers.
First off, I'm using djbdns internally and it doesn't support records. So
we really aren't using it internally.
It sounds like
Upgrade djbdns to support IPV6? Think there is a patch for it...
-mike
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 16, 2012, at 20:36, Joseph Anthony Pasquale Holsten
wrote:
> I want to like IPv6. I do. But I'm seriously considering turning off IPv6
> support from our servers.
>
> First off, I'm using djbdns
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Joseph Anthony Pasquale Holsten wrote:
But today I noticed that we have a lot of traffic to our DNS cache, and
started to investigate. Turns out that every DNS request would start
with one for the record. Ah, no luck. Maybe you forgot the search
domain? Let's retry th
19 matches
Mail list logo
