I think the solution is for those DNS operators affected who have not signed an EULA for the system that is hammering their DNS to sue Micr0$0ft for the costs incurred in dealing with the issue. Making Micr0$0ft play legal whack-a-mole may be the only strategy with a chance of success here.
(I recommend small claims so that worst case, your down side is minimal).
Owen
--On Saturday, September 27, 2003 6:56 PM -0500 Tim Yocum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In previous mail, Sean Donelan said:Are you talking about the kitchen sink protocol called DNS, or trying to contact another ISP, or the sociological difficulties of educating the general public how to configure very complicated "personal" computers and software without making a mistake?
Unfortunately, telling end users to disable a default setting is rather difficult these days. It's too bad that Microsoft hasn't addressed this issue in the past several years that it has been an enabled-by-default option.
Why is dynamic DNS update enabled by default on some operating systems?
Back in beta days, the official explanation given was that the DNS updating was a "value add" and that it would never be disabled as a default as a courtesy to corporate customers. Furthermore, MSFT folks have repeatedly said that the workaround is to simply configure your nameserver to silently ignore the error logs.
Neat policy, eh? I would assume that the dynamic updating feature is something easily toggled via a registry script; larger ISPs ought to include this "fix" as an option with their installation CDs. Alas, we get back to the ongoing debate: adjust user prefs for them, for their own good... or get the vendor to cooperate?
- Tim
