At 05:25 PM 5/3/2002 +0100, you wrote:
I got some of these a few weeks ago. I believe these test messages are sent
to find the non-deliverables in their mailing list. Right after I got these
test messages, they started sending quite a bit of spam. I filtered
sohu.com and it went away.
>Not m
At 01:20 AM 5/2/2002 -0700, Scott Francis wrote:
>The average customer buying a "web-enabled" phone doesn't need a
>publicly-routeable IP. I challenge anybody to demonstrate why a cell phone
>needs a public IP. It's a PHONE, not a server.
I'm not buying a phone I can't run ssh from. End of stor
At 05:32 PM 4/26/2002 -0400, Matt Zito wrote:
Replacing the hints file with the top level zone speeds up lookups, and
removes the burden from the root servers:
zone "." {
type master;
file "root.db";
};
However, the best way to do this is to AXFR the root zone off of the root
s
At 05:04 PM 4/26/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Anyone know where I can obtain the latest and greatest? I just tried
>ftp.icann.org to no avail (host not found.) which is where I used to get
>them.
>Thanks in advance
>Curtis
For the USG/ICANN/IANA legacy root, try here:
ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/n
At 06:41 PM 4/19/2002 -0700, Pete Ehlke wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 06:32:58PM -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
> >
> > SOAs with bogus.domain.names pointing to 127.0.0.1 appear to be causing
> > email to bounce (amongst other things).
>
>Ermm... Do you have any actual
At 08:31 AM 4/19/2002 -0700, Paul A Vixie wrote:
>this was sent personally, but i'm answering to the list.
>
> > It might help the A Root, at least, if the SOA record listed
> > bogus.root-servers.net instead of A.root-servers.net, and then a record
> > mapped bogus.root-servers.net to 127.0.0.1
At 03:06 PM 3/14/2002 -0500, Jon King wrote:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,21100,00.html
http://www.idg.net/idgns/1999/08/05/DysonEntersPoliticalSpatOverDomain.shtml
Dyson reiterated that point in her letter to Bliley and said that the ICANN
board expects that Sims will communicate
At 06:30 PM 3/6/2002 +, you wrote:
>In most people's example networks they PROBABLY run all their 'services'
>on virtual interfaces anyway so ssh doesn't have to listen on the same ip
>as bind so perhaps it's a non-issue.
Does anyone have a good reference for this particular solution? Most
