On 23.07 22:30, Simon Waters wrote:
The abstract doesn't mention that the TTL on NS records is found to be
important for scalability of the DNS.
Sic!
And it is the *child* TTL that counts for most implementations.
i'd said:
wrt the mit paper on why small ttl's are harmless, i recommend that
y'all actually read it, the whole thing, plus some of the references,
rather than assuming that the abstract is well supported by the body.
someone asked me:
Would you happen to have the URL for the MIT paper?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
| Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:01:54 +
| From: Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: that MIT paper again (Re: VeriSign's rapid DNS updates in
.com/.net )
|
|wrt the mit paper on why small ttl's are harmless, i recommend that
|y'all actually read
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:30:46 BST, Simon Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think relying on accurate DNS information to distinguish spammers from
genuine senders is at best shakey currently, the only people I can think
would suffer with making it easier and quicker to create new domains
would
