> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 02:57:35PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > > I also concur with the various protests against using . for the RNAME,
> > > and would suggest instead "nobody.localhost." along with a ref to
> > > 2606. That should be sufficiently clear to any human who looks at it,
> >
On Jun 7, 2007, at 9:57 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I also concur with the various protests against using . for the
RNAME,
and would suggest instead "nobody.localhost." along with a ref to
2606. That should be sufficiently clear to any human who looks at it,
and also meets the goal of not provi
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 02:57:35PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > I also concur with the various protests against using . for the RNAME,
> > and would suggest instead "nobody.localhost." along with a ref to
> > 2606. That should be sufficiently clear to any human who looks at it,
> > and also me
Look for draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-02 in the
I-D repository soon.
In the mean time you can find it here.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~marka63/draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers.html
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley
> I also concur with the various protests against using . for the RNAME,
> and would suggest instead "nobody.localhost." along with a ref to
> 2606. That should be sufficiently clear to any human who looks at it,
> and also meets the goal of not providing any useful data to a spam bot.
No
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 07:18:01AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 7-Jun-2007, at 01:20, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > Show me the xml. There should be a way to do a table.
> >
> >
> >
> >0.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 "THIS" NETWORK
> >*/
> >127.
On 7-Jun-2007, at 01:20, Mark Andrews wrote:
Show me the xml. There should be a way to do a table.
0.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 "THIS" NETWORK
*/
127.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 LOOP-BACK
NETWORK */
254.169.IN-A
> Howdy,
>
> I finally had a chance to take a serious look at this draft with an
> eye toward implementing its recommendations for FreeBSD's default name
> server configuration, and noticed that it isn't quite in final form,
> so I decided to take a crack at improving the text. Along the way I
>
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Doug Barton wrote:
I think this also opens up a question about the motivation for this
draft. Is it primarily to reduce spurious traffic to the roots and/or
AS112 (certainly a noble goal, don't get me wrong), or is it primarily
to aid operators in configuring helpful defaults
