[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 ]