[members-discuss] New (silent) reverse dns checks
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] New (silent) reverse dns checks
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] New (silent) reverse dns checks
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Job Snijders
job at instituut.net
Fri Jun 7 14:09:19 CEST 2019
why does it make sense? I don't see how one follows from the other. Registrars doing such checks are generally frowned upon as they get in the way of out-of-order provisioning. On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 2:07 PM Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis at linx.net> wrote: > > On 7 Jun 2019, at 12:54, Rudolf E. Steiner <r.steiner at nemox.net> wrote: > > >> Split them into different IP addresses and RIPE won’t mind. > > > > I know. But RIPE is not the internet-police. > > > > Don't block open resolvers! You can warn, if you want. > > Most registrars check the same for forward delegations so I think RIPE checking the same for reverse make sense. > > - Kurtis - > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/job%40instituut.net
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] New (silent) reverse dns checks
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] New (silent) reverse dns checks
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]