North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Detecting a non-existent domain
At 10:24 AM -0400 9/24/03, John A. Martin wrote: That seems like it would work as well. In my case I need to make use of the A and MX records for other things anyway, so I might as well go that path. I'd need to sit down and see which mechanism uses the least queries.>>>>> "Kee" == Kee Hinckley"RE: Detecting a non-existent domain" Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:16:04 -0400Kee> At 3:15 PM -0700 9/23/03, David Schwartz wrote: >> How would you do this before? Does an A record for a hostname >> mean that a host with that name exists? If so, then all *.com >> 'hosts' now 'exist'. If not, what did you mean by exist before? I just lurk nanog so my question probably doesn't count. Anyway, whats wrong with checking what used to be called "the DNS invariant", ie. name <-> ip queries should agree as in I'm concerned though that all these mechanisms could fall apart if Verisign decided to start using a third-party content provider to distribute the load on their server. -- Kee Hinckley http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
|