Rob McEwen wrote:
Cami wrote
Exactly how is this faster than using a dns caching nameserver?
As I mentioned, (1) artificially long caching times (well beyond TTL) can be
set for both negative and positive return and (2) once cached, the lookup is
not dependent on another 3rd party server which might have been overloaded
or mis-configured.
Artificially long caching the result of overloaded or mis-configured
has the same drawbacks as regular dns caching servers, possibly even
worse.
You're welcome to provide some type of tests/data to backup your
ideas/claim but i'm somewhat specticle if anything positive/usefull
will come out of it. I see no problem whatsoever with regular dns
caching nameservers, even dealing with 10's of millions of mails /
lookups per day on my systems.
Doing non-cached lookups are expensive, thats a given. Use a caching
nameserver and its no longer expensive.
Cami
