On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 06:23:06PM -0700, Steve Atkins wrote:
> DNS clue might be relevant. We're not, though. Rather I'm saying that
> publicly criticizing people who volunteer services to a project,
> about things that are not related to the services they're providing
> is at best a little
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
If we were playing DNS body part size wars then who has the bigger DNS clue
might be relevant. We're not, though. Rather I'm saying that publicly
criticizing people who volunteer services to a project, about things that
are not related to the servic
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Tim Allen wrote:
Andrew was apparently suggesting that the configuration issue he
mentioned is not irrelevant, and may be the actual cause of the
problems. Since he works for a domain registrar, I'm prepared to assume,
at least as a working hypothesis, that he knows what he
On Sep 6, 2006, at 6:41 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Irrelevant details of the server configuration that do not
directly affect those services aren't really something to gossip
about on a public mailing list, though.
The two are quite different things.
Andrew was apparently suggesting th
If we were playing DNS body part size wars then who has the bigger DNS
clue might be relevant. We're not, though. Rather I'm saying that
publicly criticizing people who volunteer services to a project, about
things that are not related to the services they're providing is at best
a little imp
* Steve Atkins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> If we were playing DNS body part size wars then who has the bigger
> DNS clue might be relevant. We're not, though. Rather I'm saying that
> publicly criticizing people who volunteer services to a project,
> about things that are not related to the
When you commit to providing services to this community, it is
absolutely the business of that community on how the infrastructure is
managed.
It is the business of the community that the services provided are
adequate and stable, certainly. That's become rather obvious recently.
Irrelevan
Irrelevant details of the server configuration that do not directly
affect those services aren't really something to gossip about on a
public mailing list, though.
The two are quite different things.
Andrew was apparently suggesting that the configuration issue he
mentioned is not irrele
On Sep 6, 2006, at 5:58 PM, Tim Allen wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
On Sep 6, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
When you commit to providing services to this community, it is
absolutely the business of that community on how the
infrastructure is managed.
It is the business of the com
Steve Atkins wrote:
On Sep 6, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
When you commit to providing services to this community, it is
absolutely the business of that community on how the infrastructure
is managed.
It is the business of the community that the services provided are
adequa
On Sep 6, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Also the servers are volunteer provided, so
it's not really anyones business other than the server owners.
Given that the entire postgresql.org infrastructure just went off the
air because of what sure looked to me like an error in
administrat
Also the servers are volunteer provided, so
it's not really anyones business other than the server owners.
Given that the entire postgresql.org infrastructure just went off the
air because of what sure looked to me like an error in
administration, I submit that it _is_ others' business how the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Atkins) writes:
> On Sep 6, 2006, at 9:50 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> Now that the DNS is back (thanks!), I thought I'd ask why the ra bit
>> is set on the responses. Are those servers providing recursion to
>> the whole Net? (They seem to be.) If so, that's a Bad Thin
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 09:59:29AM -0700, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> There's not anything like universal agreement on whether that's
> a bad thing, or not.
Uh, well, there sure is right now among TLD operators. Wide-open
recursion is being used in a denial of service attack that causes
orders-of-m
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Now that the DNS is back (thanks!), I thought I'd ask why the ra bit
> is set on the responses. Are those servers providing recursion to
> the whole Net? (They seem to be.) If so, that's a Bad Thing.
>
> A
>
Yes, they do seem to be and yes it probably is a Ba
On Sep 6, 2006, at 9:50 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hi,
Now that the DNS is back (thanks!), I thought I'd ask why the ra bit
is set on the responses. Are those servers providing recursion to
the whole Net? (They seem to be.) If so, that's a Bad Thing.
There's not anything like universal ag
Hi,
Now that the DNS is back (thanks!), I thought I'd ask why the ra bit
is set on the responses. Are those servers providing recursion to
the whole Net? (They seem to be.) If so, that's a Bad Thing.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If they don't do anything, we don't need their acr
17 matches
Mail list logo
