RE: uDNS Root Name Servers Taking Shape - on a couple ISDN lines
On Thursday, May 29, 1997 6:05 PM, Timothy C. Brown[SMTP:tcb@I1.NET] wrote: @ > Jamie, @ @ Jim, i'll save Jamie the trouble: @ @ > 1. What is the official Root Name Server configuration @ > endorsed by NANOG ? @ @ I doubt Jamie speaks for NANOG and I also doubt that NANOG endorses a Root @ Name Server configuration [as it would be all over the place if they did @ and so many NANOGers have very varied opinions]. @ Does NANOG (or its members) plan to support (deploy) a Root Name Server Confederation for North America ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp
The majority (like the majority of non-NANOG members) support the IANA's roots; at least one NANOG member runs an IANA root server. The IANA roots are located mainly in North America, with one server at the LINX in Telehouse, London. You, Karl, and various others have deployed your own servers, which have largely been ignored by the other 99.5% of the general population. NANOG as a whole can't be represented as having a single position on anything; I'm surprised that you would think it could. Stephen At 23:11 29-05-97 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote:
Does NANOG (or its members) plan to support (deploy) a Root Name Server Confederation for North America ?
-- Unsolicited commercial/propaganda email subject to legal action. Under US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), Sec.227(b)(1)(C), and Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a State may impose a fine of not less than $500 per message. Read the full text of Title 47 Sec 227 at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html
I've done two things in this reply that, if done by all who reply to a DNS-related thread, would save NANOG from being spammed by Fleming and his followers. (Note that Fleming posts his irrelevant drivel to NANOG since he *knows* that everybody on NEWDOM has already heard it.) 1. I added a "Reply-to: newdom@ar.com", which Fleming's folks will remove since they DESPERATELY NEED to have their words visible to the NANOG audience, even knowing full well that NANOG does not want to hear their floof. 2. I removed all individuals from the To: and Cc: headers, leaving only the mailing lists. This keeps people from getting two copies of the reply, since they are clearly ON the mailing list. While I know that Denninger and Fleming and suchlike folks are not willing to honour anyone's stated desire to not hear their DNS flames, and they feel that the "Reply-to:" is an act of aggression against them since it seeks to control what they do, I hope that others will respect it and also that others will start removing individuals from CC: headers. People on NANOG are expected to be smart enough, and usually ethical enough, to edit mail headers. If you can't cope, consider unsubscribing or at least going into "lurk" mode and not adding replies to threads.
The majority (like the majority of non-NANOG members) support the IANA's roots; at least one NANOG member runs an IANA root server. The IANA roots are located mainly in North America, with one server at the LINX in Telehouse, London.
There's also one at NORDU.NET.
You, Karl, and various others have deployed your own servers, which have largely been ignored by the other 99.5% of the general population.
Actually that's 99.95%, not 99.5%.
NANOG as a whole can't be represented as having a single position on anything; I'm surprised that you would think it could.
NANOG as a whole was certain that Metcalfe was wrong. But the point is good.
On Fri, 30 May 1997 10:46:07 -0700, Paul wrote:
I've done two things in this reply that, if done by all who reply to a DNS-related thread, would save NANOG from being spammed by Fleming and his followers. (Note that Fleming posts his irrelevant drivel to NANOG since he *knows* that everybody on NEWDOM has already heard it.) 1. I added a "Reply-to: newdom@ar.com", which Fleming's folks will remove since they DESPERATELY NEED to have their words visible to the NANOG audience, even knowing full well that NANOG does not want to hear their floof.
Hmm... Sounds like you are asking us to possibly honor someone's desire that no-one should see our replies to their statements about us. If I was to post a message saying that Bind has an "undocumented feature" in it such that if it receives a request for www.mickeyDs.com that all the traffic lights in the country turn green at once and that Paul Vixie purposely did this, you would honor my Reply-to: basketweavers-l@bellview.com ? I think not... :-)
2. I removed all individuals from the To: and Cc: headers, leaving only the mailing lists. This keeps people from getting two copies of the reply, since they are clearly ON the mailing list.
I have always done this (unless I messed up :-), and find those who don't as annoying as you do... I will promise to never start (and have never have started) a thread about uDNS on nanog . Take care, Ron Kimball for uDNS
participants (4)
-
hostmaster＠starfire.douglas.ma.us -
Jim Fleming -
Paul A Vixie -
Stephen Sprunk