This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/members-discuss@ripe.net/
[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://mailman.ripe.net/ > 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 ]