Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:07:07 -0800 (PST) From: Glendon Gross <gross@clones.com> To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> Cc: Mike Andrews <mandrews@bit0.com>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: Weird sporadic DNS resolution problems Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0101190603300.7160-100000@mail.clones.com> In-Reply-To: <NCBBLIEPOCNJOAEKBEAKEEDFNCAA.davids@webmaster.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
You may not agree with this, but perhaps the latest BIND is just too anal in the way it does validation checks. This is not a perfect world, and some sites are likely to remain misconfigured. Does that mean they should not be permitted to send e-mail? For example, I built and installed Bind 9.1 and had to revert or else my site would be down until I can fix the DNS tables. DNS help is hard to find these days, so I'll put up with a functional, albeit misconfigured site until I can figure out how to satisfy all of BIND version 9's requirements. Regards, Glen Gross On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, David Schwartz wrote: > > > On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Mike Tancsa wrote: > > > Basically you hit on the real problem for us here. We all agree that the > > root cause of the problem is some sites are too damn stupid to set their > > nameservers up correctly. It would be nice if they all went to Bind 8.2.3 > > or Bind 9 and were forced to fix their problem. Unfortunately, this is > > the real world and people are likely to stay stupid, even when you tell > > them that their nameserver is broken -- they just don't care. Even more > > unfortunately and more importantly to me, we have customers that don't > > understand that it's the other people that are stupid, because "it worked > > before you upgraded, and they didn't change anything, therefore it must be > > your (my) problem and not theirs." That's what Mike Tancsa and myself are > > up against, and that's why I started this silly thread. :) > > First, as to the technical issues, I agree with both of you. It is > certainly reasonable to figure out what the current behavior is, where it > changed, and how to get it back for people who want the old behavior. After > all, it could even be do to a bug. Nevertheless, I have a problem with > people who cave in to irrational customers. > > I have been there more than once, and it's really not as hard as you might > think to stand your ground. The more pain misconfigured sites suffer, the > more likely they are to fix their misconfiguration. > > In this case, I would simply state, "The other sites are misconfigured. I > will gladly show you the specifics of the misconfiguration and the relevant > standards that they are violating. At some point, we may be able to work out > a sane way to send mail to these sites without sending mail in the wrong > place in the face of real transient problems. But at the moment, we simply > have to insist that sites that wish to exchange email with us and our > customers follow the relevant requirements. There is simply no other way for > different people's networks to cooperate with each other." > > DS > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.20.0101190603300.7160-100000>