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 ]
Kurt Erik Lindqvist
kurtis at linx.net
Fri Jun 7 14:20:10 CEST 2019
> On 7 Jun 2019, at 13:09, Job Snijders <job at instituut.net> wrote: > > 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. If you mean that you request delegation to non-existing or stale DNS I am not sure why that would be a good thing? As in the case for open resolvers, if you really have a use case for them you can separate the IPs. I am pretty convinced that in the vast majority of cases where RIPE detects an open resolver there should not be one. So closing these is a good thing. - Kurtis -
- 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 ]