|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: (on-topic) / RE: Site Finder
My bad I should've been more specific, that is indeed what I will personally be doing on any networks that I can, which should be basically everything. I'm also considering the other alternative suggested by some, which is to push traffic to a host of my own. I will have to do something about email bound for mis-spelled domains because I do not and will not trust some anonymous third party even with my users mis-spelled domain names. So I think one way or another I'm going to be forced into doing work that I don't have time, nor desire to do, just to provide my users with the services they expect. As I'm sure a number of places are going to have to do. Not really networking related -- but -- when VeriSign had SiteFinder turned on before I experienced markedly larger mail queues because of brain-damaged Snubby and/or mail rejector. Not really a problem for my MTA, but more of an issue that I can only imagine how much this caused really big ISPs like AOL to increase the amount of email in their outbound queues. --On Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:20 PM -0500 Bryan Bradsby <[email protected]> wrote: I for one am going to dumping all traffic bound to SiteFinder.One (operational) suggestion. Kindly return an icmp [net|host|port] unreachable, not just a route to /dev/null. Just a thought about the (waste of) client retrys and timeouts. Thank you, -bryan bradsby -- Undocumented Features quote of the moment... "It's not the one bullet with your name on it that you have to worry about; it's the twenty thousand-odd rounds labeled `occupant.'" --Murphy's Laws of Combat
|