On Aug 26, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Tim Bray <[email protected]> wrote: > I was a bit dismayed by the reply from Brad Knowles. It read to me > like `somebody had a good idea to have some very basic data validation > on the list and that wasn't my idea, and I don't like it`. Maybe that > isn't how it was meant to come across. I think it is a good idea for > lists of servers to be automatically checked.
My intention was to make it clear that while I thought it was a good idea to validate this data, the OP had not successfully contacted us first to get our permission to scrape that information. I definitely support the goal of validating that data, regardless of what may or may not happen with the pool. I just want to make sure we go about it the right way. > The pool is an amazing thing. Anything we can do to help people add new > servers is a good thing. Agreed. For 99.999% of the users out there, I think the pool should probably be the preferred solution. However, for those people who might want to operate a pool server, or who might have other reasons as to why they want to use non-pool servers, I think it would be a good idea for us to have a well-maintained list of alternative servers. And right now, that alternative list is stale and unmonitored. > BTW, I'd be happy to host some kind of timeserver. If anybody has a > suggestion for an atomic/GPS clock that I can fit in my server room. > I've easy access to outside for an antenna and a 100M leased line. I've > got a USB GPS, but I suspect that won't be good enough. I can recommend Meinberg, but then I’m probably biased in this matter. -- Brad Knowles <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ pool mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool
