Greg, you're tryin' too hard
[Apologies to NANOG; Greg sent me a reply off list, all three of his addresses feed to weird, and weird is *still* *entirely* too Catholic about machines with perfectly valid A records that do not also have MX records. I won't be continuing this thread, so as to avoid annoying anyone.] I don't know that you'll actually *get* this; ISTR you having your mailer set to be More Catholic Than The Pope... On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 02:12:27AM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
[ On Saturday, January 27, 2001 at 21:57:00 ( -0500), Jay R. Ashworth wrote: ]
Subject: Re: How common is lack of DNS server diversity?
Well, actually, Greg, there are multiple root clusters, with multiple sets of authoritative root servers -- but only one of those is consecrated by DoC/ICANN.
Yeah, OK, but the "consecrated" set isn't a "cluster", If I'm guessing correctly what you mean by that...
I meant it in the administrative sense, not the technical one. Yeah, by that definition, it's a cluster.
The other ones do exist, do work, and so far as I'm aware, there are not currently any rogue redelegations of "traditional" gTLDs, nor many, if any, collisions of non-traditional gTLDs, amongst the various ones.
Yeah, but just what percentage of real users ever hit them? I know of no major ISP that uses anything but the DoC/IANA DNS. Come to think of it I don't know of *any* ISP using the rogues.
No, I don't think they do, at the moment. None of the first or second tier access providers, certainly. I do know of at least a few third-tier (read: mom-n-pop's) that are.
I don't know exactly how the rogues work either, though if I'm guessing right they're not very safely or securely implemented since they'll require recursion be enabled. So, "work" might be a relative term here.
Indeed. I don't know if they're separating resolver and zone servers or not. They should be, of course; I haven't dug into the technical details. I *can* say, though, that not all the people involved are Friends-of-Gene, nor kooks.
I don't think I've ever seen a published URL point to any of there new TLDs either, and of course even if I did I couldn't see if it "worked" anyway.
That depends, of course, on your definition of "published". :-)
Nice experiments maybe, pushing the envelope possibly, but otherwise a total waste of time and effort.
I don't think so at all. While who runs the root servers and who runs the root *zone* are two separate questions, unfortunately almost always conflated, in the long run I think that the word 'confederation' will almost have to be the best term for the former... (I absolutely *shudder* at the thought of the FBI pulling a raid on NetSol and yanking *all* their roots down simultaneously... and if you think that can't happen, you ain't been paying attention), and as for the latter...well, we'll see. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 804 5015
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 11:08:12AM -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
[Apologies to NANOG; Greg sent me a reply off list, all three of his addresses feed to weird, and weird is *still* *entirely* too Catholic about machines with perfectly valid A records that do not also have MX records. I won't be continuing this thread, so as to avoid annoying anyone.]
I don't know that "Catholic" is a good term for it, since he's violating RFCs and admits it proudly. I think that makes it more Episcopalian. :-)
[ On Sunday, January 28, 2001 at 11:23:40 (-0500), Shawn McMahon wrote: ]
Subject: Re: Greg, you're tryin' too hard
I don't know that "Catholic" is a good term for it, since he's violating RFCs and admits it proudly.
Only one contradictory sub-paragraph of one requirement of one RFC....
I think that makes it more Episcopalian. :-)
:-) -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods@acm.org> <robohack!woods> Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 04:06:16AM -0500, Greg A. Woods@planix.com (Greg A. Woods) wrote:
[ On Sunday, January 28, 2001 at 11:23:40 (-0500), Shawn McMahon wrote: ]
Subject: Re: Greg, you're tryin' too hard
I don't know that "Catholic" is a good term for it, since he's violating RFCs and admits it proudly.
Only one contradictory sub-paragraph of one requirement of one RFC....
I think that makes it more Episcopalian. :-)
:-)
Whichever religion it may be, it means that I shitcan his replies, since my only other option is to piss NANOG off with mine -- since mail that will go to 99.44% of other mailers on the net won't go to his. If a A record with no MX record was A Bad Thing, sendmail, postfix, and M-Sexchange would no doubt have quit delivering to them years ago. BTW, Greg: On my carbons to your two other addresses? The envelope addresses *weren't* *mine*: you were being overly picky on the *body* *address*. So bugger off. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 804 5015
[[ Sorry folks, but because Jay is being stupid, I'm going to be stupid too. ]] [[ at least I set the Reply-To: !!! ]] [ On Monday, January 29, 2001 at 10:33:34 (-0500), Jay R. Ashworth wrote: ]
Subject: Re: Greg, you're tryin' too hard
If a A record with no MX record was A Bad Thing, sendmail, postfix, and M-Sexchange would no doubt have quit delivering to them years ago.
Postfix, Exim, *and* Smail all include the ability to do identical (or at least very similar) checks on the SMTP protocol commands and parameters. Folks like me who don't like spam yet seem to get a lot of it targetted at them (and/or their domain -- it was a good idea at the time, before the Internet took off! :-), are entirely likely to enable those checks, which means folks who don't pay attention to the details in their mailer and DNS configurations will lose. I don't care if one or two people can't send me e-mail so long as the majority works (and let me tell you, the majority certainly works!) -- that's their problem, not mine. Unless your mailer is listed in one of the RBLs, I'm not going to permanently block your e-mail if you're willing to fix your configurations.
BTW, Greg: On my carbons to your two other addresses? The envelope addresses *weren't* *mine*: you were being overly picky on the *body* *address*. So bugger off.
That would be magic beyond my capabilities since my mailer cannot look in the body of the message (at least not yet). If you're getting bounces from my mailer when you 'CC' another of my addresses then it's because your SMTP envelope sender address is bogus. Fix it. I'm not even going to bother looking in my logs to see just how bogus it is and recommend a way to fix it. -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods@acm.org> <robohack!woods> Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 04:57:47PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
[[ Sorry folks, but because Jay is being stupid, I'm going to be stupid too. ]]
<ahem> Apologies to all; you know how procmail works; that's why I changed the subject line.
[[ at least I set the Reply-To: !!! ]]
Yes, to an address I can't get to. Thank you so much.
[ On Monday, January 29, 2001 at 10:33:34 (-0500), Jay R. Ashworth wrote: ]
Subject: Re: Greg, you're tryin' too hard
If a A record with no MX record was A Bad Thing, sendmail, postfix, and M-Sexchange would no doubt have quit delivering to them years ago.
Postfix, Exim, *and* Smail all include the ability to do identical (or at least very similar) checks on the SMTP protocol commands and parameters.
I was discussing default configurations, obviously. But you've yet to justify why an A record isn't enough to deliver mail.
Folks like me who don't like spam yet seem to get a lot of it targetted at them (and/or their domain -- it was a good idea at the time, before the Internet took off! :-), are entirely likely to enable those checks, which means folks who don't pay attention to the details in their mailer and DNS configurations will lose.
I don't *do* the mailer configurations for the Freenet; I'm a Usenet guy.
I don't care if one or two people can't send me e-mail so long as the majority works (and let me tell you, the majority certainly works!) -- that's their problem, not mine.
Well, no, it' doesn't work that way. If you can't justify it under the published standards, then it doesn't *matter* what quantity of connections it breaks, it is *still* broken. Period. End of report.
Unless your mailer is listed in one of the RBLs, I'm not going to permanently block your e-mail if you're willing to fix your configurations.
I would be willing to trouble the guy whose job that is if you presented any reasonable evidence that there is "fixing" necessary; ie: that there's anything "broken". To date, I have seen no unequivocal evidence that this is so.
BTW, Greg: On my carbons to your two other addresses? The envelope addresses *weren't* *mine*: you were being overly picky on the *body* *address*. [ British cuss word elided to make Merit happy ]
That would be magic beyond my capabilities since my mailer cannot look in the body of the message (at least not yet).
*Excuse me*? An MTA that can't look in the body of a message? Can I have a hit, too?
If you're getting bounces from my mailer when you 'CC' another of my addresses then it's because your SMTP envelope sender address is bogus. Fix it. I'm not even going to bother looking in my logs to see just how bogus it is and recommend a way to fix it.
I CC'd all three of them; the envelope addresses on your planix and acm forwards should be *those machines* addresses. If they're not, then something *is* broken, and it's not within my power to fix. No? You know, I hate this sort of situation. I have two choices: shut up, fail to defend my opinion, and hope everyone realized the problem is yours... or reply in the only manner you've carefully limited me to, and annoy everyone. Thanks, Greg. I really appreciate it. I've gotten read off by Susan over you twice already, too. I knew that I shouldn't have bothered to reply to your original message. I knew it. Document your assertions, chapter and verse, or don't bother to reply to this message, 'k? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 804 5015
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
You know, I hate this sort of situation. I have two choices: shut up, fail to defend my opinion, and hope everyone realized the problem is yours... or reply in the only manner you've carefully limited me to, and annoy everyone.
I vote option A. It's what a mature person would do. (It's also what I'd do, so I guess that doesn't mean much...) Matthew Devney Teamsphere Interactive
participants (4)
-
Jay R. Ashworth -
mdevney＠teamsphere.com -
Shawn McMahon -
woods＠weird.com