On 8 June 2014 22:16, Hans-Cees Speel wrote:
> Somehow it doesn't work, so they probably use a trick.
> But I can't find the dns servers. Any help is apreciated.
No trick, query for the SOA, then query for the NS of the domain
returned in the SOA...
sjcarr@elmo:~ $ dig www.ing-beveiligingsoftwa
Am 08.06.2014 23:16, schrieb Hans-Cees Speel:
> I got a fishing email and for my dns-firewall I want to find the dns server
> that serves the domain.
>
> Somehow it doesn't work, so they probably use a trick.
>
> They want you to click this link:
>
> https://bit.ly/1lfxB4n
>
> parsing it with
Hi,
I got a fishing email and for my dns-firewall I want to find the dns
server that serves the domain.
Somehow it doesn't work, so they probably use a trick.
They want you to click this link:
https://bit.ly/1lfxB4n
parsing it withhttp://www.getlinkinfo.com/
show this redirects to
1. h
I guess I confuse easily...still Either I don't understand what it's doing,
or I don't understand why it's doing what it is, or what it's doing is
confused.
Sigh.
On 08-Jun-14 14:24, Evan Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 09:45:23AM -0400, Timothe Litt wrote:
>> Consider a continuous stream
On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 09:45:23AM -0400, Timothe Litt wrote:
> Consider a continuous stream of queries to a slow server. For the sake
> of exposition, assume the incremental adjustment is 1 rather than 5.
>
> Named drops the 11th query, but increases the limit.
It only increases the limit if on
> I'm about to start DNSSEC validation on my resolvers (BIND 9.8) but
> wanted to know beforehand if there was a way to disable DNSSEC
> validation for particular domains. I searched the archives and found
> the answer to be "no" (at present time).
The answer is still no. We do have "negative tr
Hi everyone,
I'm about to start DNSSEC validation on my resolvers (BIND 9.8) but
wanted to know beforehand if there was a way to disable DNSSEC
validation for particular domains. I searched the archives and found
the answer to be "no" (at present time).
This change is going to impact thousands o
On 07-Jun-14 12:36, Evan Hunt wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 12:02:24PM -0400, Jorge Fábregas wrote:
>> For me, this "clients-per-query" of 10 is an upper limit (maximum number
>> of clients before it starts dropping). So then, what's the purpose of
>> "max-clients-per-query"?
> Over time, as it
8 matches
Mail list logo