On 11/08/2015 07:59, Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng. wrote:
> On 2015-08-10 16:49, Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng. wrote:
>
>> Though I realize my error not recalling that there is a middle (neutral)
>> level, and which is more appropriate, since softfail is somewhere between
>> fail and neutral which is
BTW: your SPF is completly broken
http://www.openspf.org/Why?s=mfrom;id=lkc...@ksu.edu;ip=54.200.129.228
The domain outbound._spf.mailhop.org has published an SPF policy,
however, an error occurred while the receiving mail server tried to
evaluate the policy:
Missing required IPv4 address in
truncated the long, hard to understand and unrelated stuff
Am 10.08.2015 um 23:49 schrieb Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng.:
that above is pure nonsense - your DOMAIN has either a strict SPF
policy -
or a testing policy ~ and no mix of both
~ means "testing, please don't reject if it don't pass" and
On 2015-08-10 16:49, Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng. wrote:
Though I realize my error not recalling that there is a middle (neutral)
level, and which is more appropriate, since softfail is somewhere between
fail and neutral which is not where I had intended the servers to be.
Went to fix it, only to
On 2015-08-07 22:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 08.08.2015 um 05:13 schrieb Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng.:
So, when we were with this provider, our SPF had exclusive pool as good,
but included the other pool prefixed with '~'
can we stop that foolish discussion on the named list?
How about an unna
Authoritative servers (listed in NS records) shouldn't be recursive.
This prevents leakage of cache data. This provide consistent
answers. The server also doesn't have to decide what type of answer
to give (recursive vs authoritative). Glue doesn't get overridden
by answers, etc.
Recurive serv
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Gary Carr wrote:
>
> Overall, is breaking this function out - internally - really worth it?
>
I can offer a personal testimonial on the management aspects of this:
A couple of years back, we made the switch from combined
authoritative/recursive servers to recursi
Does anyone know if the socket errors I mentioned in my op are related to IPv6
and, if not, what they are related to?
Many thanks.
From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Dimitri Yioulos
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 4:07 PM
To: bind-users@l
Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote:
> "Separate authoritative and recursive functions" is really a simplistic
> approach to a complex challenge. I think a better approach is to make
> both the published-authoritative function and the recursive-resolution
> functions robust enough *in*and*of*themselves* so t
On 10/08/2015 04:18, Leandro wrote:
> Thanks !!! it compliled now ...
> still trying to get the json output.
> http://10.0.0.250:8080
> works, but:
> http://10.0.0.250:8080/json
Try http://10.0.255:8080/json/v1
[also /json/v1/mem, /json/v1/server, etc.]
Ray
10 matches
Mail list logo
