-xbl.spamhaus.org127.0.0.650
Matt
David Sullivan wrote:
Hello Darin,
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 4:12:49 PM, you wrote:
DC SBL ip4rsbl.spamhaus.org * 55 0
DC XBL ip4rxbl.spamhaus.org * 55 0
I was using 127.0.0.2 for SBL and 127.0.0.4 for XBL but Spamhaus
Andy,
What you posted will work exactly the same way and there is no advantage
either way except that your example is more normalized. I use the
variables for a purpose that isn't necessary for most.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi Matt:
Are you saying there is an advantage of the dnsbl
Matt
Scott Fisher wrote:
I don't use sbl-xbl or xbl, so I can't confirm this...
but there website refers to a 127.0.0.5 for a NJABL and the 127.0.0.4
for CBL
No mention of blitzedall anymore.
http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/answers.lasso?section=Spamhaus%20XBL
What do the different return
results. Declude will handle the multiple results and skip redundant
lookups.
Matt
Darin Cox wrote:
Then what was wrong with my example?
Darin.
- Original Message -
*From:* Matt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* declude.junkmail@declude.com mailto:declude.junkmail@declude.com
*Sent
Read my post and not Nick's :)
Matt
Darin Cox wrote:
I didn't think there was any difference between the two examples,
except for the different scoring based on DNS result code.
Just curious as to why mine was deemed improper...
Darin.
- Original Message -
*From:* Nick Hayer
/Help/SmarterMail/v3/Default.aspx?p=SAv=3.3.2369page=domainadmin/frmlists
Matt
Harry Palmer wrote:
When I send an unsubscribe e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I receive the
following error:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: host smtp1.declude.com[66.92.83.27] said:
550 Recipient not in route list. (in reply
before throwing the
contents back into Proc. This is in fact how Declude should approach
this problem rather than just a blind copying of files into Proc, or
blind moving of files into Review.
Matt
Heimir Eidskrem wrote:
I have this in the declude.cfg file but I am still getting files
are deleting or holding
messages with Declude, they will not be handled by Queue Manager which
then protects Queue Manager from crashing. Well protected servers are
also more stable.
Matt
Heimir Eidskrem wrote:
I appreciate your suggestion and will implement it but I find it
pretty amazing
. Since all of these
techniques are built to target forging zombie spam, they would be better
off just doing something that better targtets zombie spam instead of
trying to push yet another E-mail ID scheme.
Matt
David Barker wrote:
Just throwing this out there. I had heard that Yahoo.com
up.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi,
I don't have a solution - just a pointer. When I go to that particular
screen, I get an NTFS logon screen. Apparently you don't get prompted - I
wonder why?
Do you have auditing turned for object access and against your folders in
Windows Explorer
low. I ran into an issue on 2006.1 where setting everything to 0
did not functionally disable this, and if you are running a gateway, it
is best to not block your gateway :)
Matt
Linda Pagillo wrote:
Matt, i did what you said.. i now have anonomyus and basic auth checked. I'm
getting a little
If you can get a newer download, it will run for at least a week
without a proper code. That will give you time to get the code.
Matt
Brian T. wrote:
Thanks,
I guess that this issue is present,
because since upgrading to Imail 8.22 I have had problems with the
spool
approaching this header the
exact same way as all of the others it inserts; fully customizable with
variables, and different for incoming and outgoing E-mail. All that
would need to be done is add a %DecludeRefID% to the list and leave it
at that, no packing of this header by default.
Matt
from their own address book to fix that too.
So if you generally started blocking on a score of 20, and would want
to not AUTOWHITELIST any multiple recipient E-mail, this is what you
would use:
BYPASSWHITELIST bypasswhitelist 20 2 0 0
Matt
Dave Beckstrom wrote:
David,
You also need
David,
Thanks to both you and the other Dave for taking another look at this.
Matt
David Barker wrote:
Darin,
Our engineer Dave Franco is looking at a way to rewrite every message to
standardize the format in order to overcome the incorrect line terminator
issue. As there are several other
with a vulnerability switch, I know that this is not a
universally accurate method, and I fear that it could tag things such as
Linux style text attachments.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi,
Well, the necessary logic seems absolutely simple:
A) parse token, up to EITHER CR or LF
B) if CR
potentially
passing viruses completely unscanned. That's not a good set of choices.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi Matt,
I'm not sure that the issue is attachments. There is nothing wrong with
attachments using Unix/Apple linefeeds. But the RFCs for SMTP (and similar
protocols) all require t
-in that I wrote for Declude that is fully capable of
understanding CR patterns as well as long base64 code without issue.
Matt
Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote:
David,
In my opinion, which others may not share, Declude should detect all
RFC/MIME violations and flag them in some manner. There exist
the probabilities together into two groups so that it is
compatible with common spam blocking techniques.
That's really just a nutshell overview, but I think it should suffice.
Matt
David Sullivan wrote:
Anyone familiar with the difference between MXRate's public list and
their paid list
FYI, Alligate also does splitting.
Matt
Kevin Bilbee wrote:
Anti-spam\virus mail gateways.
I know barracuda, (now Symantec), does the splitting for whitelisting.
Kevin Bilbee
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
a hosted mail server would see a slightly higher rate since
most multiple-recipient E-mails are internal to a server. If you are
splitting on a gateway and not splitting internal E-mail, you should
see no increase beyond my numbers.
It's a doable solution if one has the need.
Matt
Jay Sudowski
. IMO of course.
Matt
chris wrote:
The option
is there, lets not kid
ourselves, for you issue is cost, I can understand that.
Chris
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of John T (Lists)
Sent: Thursday
these protections in around 6 months of operation, so it takes care of
itself.
Matt
Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC wrote:
Well, it didn't run for us. We tried and it caused random BSOD and ISS
wouldn't provide any support.
-Jay
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto
in itself. This is more so a fight about the way that the US
court system approaches spammer litigation than it is fighting the
spammers itself. It's about time that the courts started throwing this
stuff out and even fining the litigants.
Matt
Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC wrote:
Has anyone
essages, it
excludes these things from more granular control and other things like
review and reprocessing mechanisms.
Matt
chris wrote:
I am writing a kb as we speak see if this link helps you with the char-sets
http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets
Chris Asaro
Technical Support Engin
is that it takes more processing power since Global.cfg
whitelist hits can be used to immediately stop processing of most spam
tests.
Matt
S.J.Stanaitis wrote:
I'm trying to add confidentiality footers do outgoing emails. All arguments
over necessity aside, I need to get 'er done.
I'm sure
g recorded will expose the issue.
Matt
Wolf Tombe wrote:
I apologize if this is
OT; but this is the best support
group I know of for emergency situations, and I have one. Starting one
week ago today (slept 13th), my iMail Sysxxx.txt log files
began to grow
out of control. Files, that f
Darin,
2 cents here. I have had very, very few issues that may have been
related to Windows 2003, and some of my servers get pounded on. It is
the most stable platform that I have used to date, and it is definitely
more secure by default than 2k. YMMV of course.
Matt
Darin Cox wrote
things are different enough
that one might trigger certain behaviors one one instead of the other.
Matt
Darin Cox wrote:
Hi Matt,
All of my servers are 2003, but I
have had seen some small stability issues with 2003 where I didn't with
fully patched 2000. Also, I'm see 10-20
path from 8.22, they should definitely provide it.
Matt
Sanford Whiteman wrote:
On the IMail list they indicated that IMail 8.x is also affected and
possibly older versions as well.
A non-Ipswitch poster said that an anonymous tech indicated so. We all
know
upgrades to occur (see Ipswitch too). Of course
that may be borderline schizo thinking.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi,
I finally was able to get a confirmation from Microsoft Support yesterday
afternoon (case: SRZ060911001854)
"We are aware the issue you are experiencing. A corresponding bug
My reading of Kevin Gills' message on 9/11 was that most everything but
rich text editing now works, and that rich text support will be in the
next release. Naturally I haven't tested it, and it definitely needs
testing before committing Mac users to this interface. See below:
Hi All,
.
Matt
Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
Here are the published
details. The anonymous researcher provided no information for other
than the 2006 versions, so your question is still open, Gunter.
http://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-06-028.html
Andrew
It is also quite possible that this was greylisting 451 errors are
commonly used for greylisting:
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Spam-Filtering-for-MX/greylisting.html
A 452 error would imply a disk space issue, however these codes are not
used in a perfectly consistant manner.
Matt
John
Nick,
Do you buy any chance have have this IP also covered by a whitelist
entry of any type in your Global.cfg?
Matt
Nick Hayer wrote:
To David at Declude - or anyone else...
I have these lines in my global config Declude 4.3.7:
IPBYPASS12.152.254.14
XINHEADERX-Note: Sent from
should be changed to be more granular.
With that said, I still would rather see the long known outstanding
bugs addressed first. Clearly there has been a decision to ignore our
concerns about these bugs and work on the gateway. That's an
unfortunate way to deal with ones customers.
Matt
Goran
Close, but it's a ton easier than that. This will delete all the files
in the specified directory that are older than 7 days:
FORFILES /p C:\spamfolder /m *.* /d -8 /c "cmd /c DEL @file"
Matt
Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
Dean, I'm not sure if this is close to what you'
this
for several years without issue.
Matt
Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
Dean, I'm not sure if this is close to what you're looking for, but in
addition to the forfiles command, the "for" command that is built into
the command shell can be very handy, particularly if you're only going
one dire
seems to make a lot of sense. Keep in mind also that this
probably affects more than just = 4KB images.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi,
Yes it started around this weekend - and, in our case too, those are small
JPEG/GIF thumbnail images of up to 4K (so probably exactly one allocation
unit
It would be nice if SmarterTools would introduce a simple scoreable
text filter that could search at least the headers. That way a score
could be passed from any gateway to SmarterMail for actions.
Matt
Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC wrote:
I can confirm this is the only way
in SmarterMail, one could easily make this solid
enough that it couldn't be exploited for lower points.
Matt
Kevin Bilbee wrote:
There
would have to be a way to secure something like this. If
it can be added by a gateway what would stop a spammer form adding it
with a -1
weight
use content filters.
Matt
Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC wrote:
SmarterMail content
filters can
easily search headers I have been doing this for weeks without issue.
Thanks!
-
Jay
Sudowski // Handy
Networks LLC
Director
of Technical Operations
Providing
I use custom DNS zones for both blacklisting and whitelisting since it
is just about as scalable as you can get. If performance isn't an
issue, the Declude filters will do just fine.
Matt
Scott Fisher wrote:
Blacklisting by IP address/IP range
using the IPFILE option would
Kevin,
Declude running with SmarterMail does integrate into the SmarterMail
spam blocking configuration so that isn't an issue. For a gateway
though, this solution would in fact seem to be a reasonably good
solution, and it wouldn't be that difficult to do.
Matt
Kevin Bilbee wrote
recommend
either ORF, or Alligate Gateway for this, and Alligate Gateway is the
easiest of all to configure to do validation since it can resolve in
real-time off of the destination server and/or from an address flat file.
Matt
David Barker wrote:
Add the following line to your global.cfg
number of them fail when
tarpitted.
Matt
Chuck Schick wrote:
I am starting to see a lot of spam email that uses the recipient domain in
the from address. So if the mail is going to [EMAIL PROTECTED] the
from address may be something like [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there any
declude test to see
David Barker wrote:
I did not say that Postini offered a poor service it was a comment from
Matt.
Actually, that was a private comment from and old conversation with me,
and I think the point was missed. Postini is the McDonalds of the spam
blocking business. It's edible, it even tastes
David Barker wrote:
I don't understand why this is a problem.
That in fact IS the problem, isn't it?
:)
Matt
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can
e
Ipswitch of now under Kevin Gillis' direction as they try to pick up
the pieces of past mistakes.
Matt
David Barker wrote:
CT is a feature of the new Declude Gateway product. It was by my request
that we made CT available to Declude Security Suite users as an option and
price that is beyond
that I know.
Matt
David Barker wrote:
Ouch' let keep it in context. We have added an option that is comparable to
Message Sniffer at 1/2 the price of Message Sniffer and I don't get it. ;)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent
On 7/14/06, Scott Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another hand raised. End User (business) here. Apparantly I missed the
Exchange memo.
Put yourr hand down :-) According to the definition you are a service
provider. Quoted with emphasis added:
definition: a business which provides their
On 7/19/06, Kevin Bilbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So then indirectly it does generate revenue. Because without it revenue
would be lost.
Hardly. Carry that argument out to prove how wrong it is. By virtue
of the fact that they allow me to be in business in the first place I
can expect a
On 7/19/06, Kevin Bilbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If revenue would not be lost without it and it costs you money to provide then
what is the business case for providing the service?
In 2006, for any small operator, nothing insofar as the service itself
is concerned. You only do it to provide
that day because a large part
of me thinks it is already way too late. Honest.
Matt
David Barker wrote:
Matt,
1. With regards to no new functionality, we have been over this I agreed and
made a commitment to address this. I think to say that Declude has become
more buggy over time
fees. The only revenue that I share
is with those that generate business for my company. If I get rich off
of doing what I am doing, it will be primarily the result of my blood,
sweat and tears, otherwise there would be 10,000 others just like me.
Matt
David Barker wrote
. Declude is not
big enough of a company to defeat the lingua franca of the industries it
operates within.
Matt
David Barker wrote:
Matt,
Managed services is the fastest growing segment of this industry, CAGR
forecasted at 25% per year through 2009. While the industry may seem
commoditized, you
,
CommTouch might be a good solution (if it performs well) for those that
can pay the $195/year, however it still irks me that after two years and
lots of promises, these things are being added at an extra expense and
not available to people like me under reasonable terms.
Matt
Paul Navarre
a couple of hundred
dollars for their product regardless, so $500 or $5,000 is all the same
in effect.
Matt
Dave Beckstrom wrote:
I think everyone on
this list
should email them telling them that you are not renewing. I dont
think they have any idea of how much business
This pricing is just another way of saying "Go Away".
Matt
Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
I hadn't noticed that before.
This webpage is pretty darn explicit, so yes, the pricing you quoted is
correct! Fromthe bottom of the page that describes the
corporate licences
port wouldn't matter. I would not
move Declude off of IMail for a gateway service installation.
Matt
Goran Jovanovic wrote:
Hi All,
I am
currently running IMail 8.15 HF2 and
Declude 4.1.0. I got new server hardware so it is time to do it all
over again.
I want to incorporate
Mark et al.,
SmarterMail shouldn't be leaving this trash around, and it shouldn't be
passing this trash to Declude. While having a work-around in Declude
is nice in lieu of a fix from SmarterMail, this really should be fixed
in SmarterMail if I am understanding the issues properly.
Matt
You don't want to filter for this. This is the standard encoding that
represents any GIF. It is not unique to this spammer, but rather it is
universal. It would be no different than filtering for image/gif
Matt
Dave Doherty wrote:
ANYWHERE 30 CONTAINS R0lGODdh1
should do
be a long-standing pattern since it clearly is totally
ineffective.
Matt
Marc Catuogno wrote:
Is this
Broken spamware? Ive
gotten a few of these over the past few days.
From: LEWIS MUSASIKE
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June
28, 2006
4:33 AM
, and that
people are apprehensive to block them. I'm sure that Sniffer has rules
for this sort of thing, though possibly not this particular source.
It's funny though how there isn't a single sentence in that Subject
that isn't clich.
Matt
Marc Catuogno wrote:
Is this from
broken
TO should all have only US-ASCII printable
characters (excluding space). Anything beyond that is invalid on it's
own, and IMO, the MTA should issue a 5xx error when received indicating
as much.
Matt
Harry Vanderzand wrote:
I am having a problem where the message-id is
malformed which
. I can't say for sure 100% though that this is the case here
due to circumstances, but I strongly suspect this is the trigger. If
IMail acted properly, the message would have been rejected, and that's
not a solution to your issues either, so the fix is likely best applied
to your mailer.
Matt
a different character, similar to the bug in Declude
that is causing spam leakage with invalid Mail From characters.
Typically such software gets the name from the box. I'm not sure if
that name is somehow missing or inserted manually in the scripting.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi
ile at the same time I imagine they
seek to simplify administration for those with less time and interest,
and that they don't change for the worse the way the product is
licensed for those seeking high volumes."
It's not like we don't want to see you guys succeed.
Matt
David Barker wrot
d also like to note that IMail and SmarterMail shouldn't be
accepting these invalid characters either.
Matt
David Barker wrote:
Ok, so you prompted me to a knee-jerk reaction ... Yes, we are still in
business :)
Currently investigating the problem. Again it is a high priority and we will
notify you as s
with 2.x and before, so maybe it's a
change of behavior in 3+.
Declude???
Matt
Markus Gufler wrote:
(reposting the same message without attachments)
Hi
After reading this thread and have seen 3 spam messages in my inbox who has
final results-lines in the header with more then 200% of my hold
system trying to figure out if there is an issue without even
knowing exactly what it is. That wastes a lot of time when multiplied
by the dozens of people that might react the same way on this list to
such reports.
Thanks,
Matt
Glenn \ WCNet wrote:
I've had a swarm of stock-quote
here.
Matt
John Shacklett wrote:
Matt, I did get a reply from Gerry
earlier and I resubmitted my earlier support email to him, and he
indicated they would escalate things, but that's it.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Monday, 05 June
the
issues. I'm wondering if maybe you are whitelisting them or
something??? Maybe it will show an error???
Matt
Markus Gufler wrote:
I'm 100% sure that I have exactly the same two actions defined in both
global.cfg and $default$.junkmail. They are there for several months now and
this server
into this further I'll probably report the
bug to Declude. I'm pretty sure that I have seen several other such
posts that might have been caused by this change in behavior.
Matt
Heimir Eidskrem wrote:
Why would no action been taken on this email.
We hold on 100.
From Declude log:
06/04/2006 17
Title: Message
I found a video demonstrating a 'how to' when experiencing this problem.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5194053248358312500
Matt
Dave Doherty wrote:
That is probably the next
step. Good idea. Thanks.
-d
-
Original Message
with your Declude.cfg
settings with the list and get some feedback.
Matt
Will wrote:
I have had a problem with my Imail server backlogging mail for years now
where the spool directory will fill with hundreds of thousands of
messages. Now it's the proc folder with the new version of declude
Will,
You want to attach your Declude.cfg and not your Global.cfg. If you
haven't tweaked those settings, you will likely have issues at 140,000
per day. If you post it I'm sure that there will be some
recommendations that will take care of your issues.
Matt
Will wrote:
I am using
on this is that
it was introduced to clean up a leak of some sort that is no longer
happening because either the code is fixed, or the trigger is no longer
occurring in the wild.
Opinions may vary, but you have mine now, and based on my experience so
far, I would say that this should do it.
Matt
more good outside of dwelling on this.
As far as how appropriate the continued discussion is of Alligate, I
will, with no misgivings, never talk of it again if Declude even
suggests that it is not in their best interest to have it talked about
here.
Matt
when that was the
only app in town that fit that bill to some extent. I'm certainly
guilty for being overly enthusiastic about this one. With the right
tools and not an enormous amount of work, most here could manage pretty
close to the theoretical limit in results.
Matt
Sanford Whiteman wrote
dangerous to use without
supervision.
Matt
Kyle Fisher wrote:
That's what I am trying to figure out. I have never whitelisted our domain
or any individual account. So if it is whitelisting now I have a problem
somewhere.
Kyle
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
, but you have the ability to tweak the settings whatever
way you wish according to your own standards.
Matt
Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC wrote:
Hi Matt -
I am still somewhat confused because you are painting a rather broad picture
about your success with Alligate, and not really getting down
ry instead of delivering them,
and then it will pick them up when the external app is done. I would
love to see that happen since I only need IMail as a container for
Declude. If there is still a widespread adversion to this discussion,
I would be happy to take it off-list.
Matt
guessing that 30 messages/threads
is the limit for my box, but I'm sure that it isn't as high as 80,
though setting it at 80 would be of no consequence outside of a
prolonged heavy load caused by something like a backup of my spool. It
would be a bigger mistake to set it too low.
Matt
Jay
to a CPU monitor instead of a fixed
number with no real clue as to what is perfect under any particular
situation.
Matt
Nick Hayer wrote:
Hi Matt,
So you see any substantive performance improvement over 2x?
-Nick
Matt wrote:
Jay,
It's not about moving along, it's about limiting the CPU
during the SMTP envelope through the use of the 'pre-scanning'
gateway, and then do the heavy lifting with Declude. The one-box
solution saves money, and the gateway also saves money since it reduces
the burden of heavy lifting by reducing the volume.
Matt
Erik wrote:
Matt, is your Delcude
Andrew has always been the King of Comments.
Nick Hayer wrote:
Very nice!
It looks like Matt has taught you well on how to comment a file :)
-Nick
Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
I'd second that... on both the
observed behaviour and the request for documentation
, and I don't wish to keep manually fishing things out. If there
is an issue with looping, it would be wise for Declude to make this
only trigger say every 15 minutes instead of more regularly.
Feel free to add to this if you want.
Matt
Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
I'd second
I have an idea. Maybe this should be triggered automatically if every
DNS lookup times out on a single message. That way we wouldn't have to
set it, and it would only be called when conditions warrant.
Matt
Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
David, is there a proactive way to detect
were
somewhat common, and all it took was one leaking through Declude to
crash the services, and then you had to dig it out of the spool.
So to keep my Queue Manager stable, I had to make the leap.
I'll follow up with some comments about my experience.
Matt
Erik wrote:
LOL, had
2.0.6.16 with
IMail 8.22 myself yet, but I'm considering falling back.
Matt
Erik wrote:
Thanks Matt.
We are running Imail 8.22 (2005.10.19.3) and
Declude version 2.06.16 on a Windows 2000 Sever version5.00.2195
Service Pack 4 with will no issues other then the ones I submitted
back so far.
I can work around the bug with whitelisting for now, but the batch
processing stuff is a show stopper for me in it's current format.
Matt
moving in a new batch.
Matt
Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The problem with this architecture is that when it moves a batch of
messages into the work folder for processing, it quickly pegs the
processor at 100% as it launches all of the threads, but most
messages go through all
because
of the strange way that Declude acts.
It should be able to do almost 100% under these circumstances, but it's
not optimal behavior.
Matt
Matt wrote:
I figured that i would just start a new thread for this instead of
adding to the old one.
This was the first time that I have used
and then the
pattern repeats with proc growing while work shrinks.
My settings are as follows:
THREADS50
WAITFORMAIL100
WAITFORTHREADS10
WAITBETWEENTHREADS50
WINSOCKCLEANUPON
AUTOREVIEWON
INVITEFIXON
Matt
Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
It's a faulty design
probably work decently as a fail-over. Note that this setup
won't do hardly anything as far as load balancing goes since primary
should always be hit first unless there is an issue (connectivity or
RFC compliance).
Matt
Dave Doherty wrote:
A potentialscenario:
Two web servers
that
they are listed in your domain name registration. On the other hand, if
you query your own DNS server and have it set for round robin, it does
rotate them, but that doesn't matter here.
Try querying some domains names against a server like h.gtld-servers.net
see what I mean.
Matt
---
This E-mail
cache the unresponsive server so that
it isn't repeatedly hit. I would imagine that failing over is
application dependant, but I haven't bothered to read the RFC's.
Matt
Dave Doherty wrote:
I've experienced it both ways. It seems that some registrars return
the DNS servers primary-first
own
secondary, so I can't compare the traffic.
Matt
Dave Doherty wrote:
Hi Matt-
In any event, the root servers will return a list of name servers. If
the first name server returned is offline, then the DNS client should
try the second, regardless of which is considered primary and which
out.
Matt
Matt wrote:
Dave,
I think the trick may be whether or not the DNS server that handles
the client requests round-robins the cache. It appears that Windows
2003 DNS does do this, and BIND also appears to do this based on tests
that I just did.
So maybe it does spread things
101 - 200 of 1396 matches
Mail list logo
