[64171] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: (on-topic) / RE: Site Finder
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Loftis)
Thu Oct 16 16:49:09 2003
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:07:27 -0600
From: Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>
To: nanog list <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20031016140452.V60863@lark.capnet.state.tx.us>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
My bad I should've been more specific, that is indeed what I will
personally be doing on any networks that I can, which should be basically
everything.
I'm also considering the other alternative suggested by some, which is to
push traffic to a host of my own.
I will have to do something about email bound for mis-spelled domains
because I do not and will not trust some anonymous third party even with my
users mis-spelled domain names. So I think one way or another I'm going to
be forced into doing work that I don't have time, nor desire to do, just to
provide my users with the services they expect. As I'm sure a number of
places are going to have to do.
Not really networking related -- but -- when VeriSign had SiteFinder turned
on before I experienced markedly larger mail queues because of
brain-damaged Snubby and/or mail rejector. Not really a problem for my
MTA, but more of an issue that I can only imagine how much this caused
really big ISPs like AOL to increase the amount of email in their outbound
queues.
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:20 PM -0500 Bryan Bradsby
<Bryan.Bradsby@capnet.state.tx.us> wrote:
>
>> I for one am going to dumping all traffic bound to SiteFinder.
>
> One (operational) suggestion.
>
> Kindly return an icmp [net|host|port] unreachable, not just a route to
> /dev/null.
>
> Just a thought about the (waste of) client retrys and timeouts.
>
> Thank you,
> -bryan bradsby
--
Undocumented Features quote of the moment...
"It's not the one bullet with your name on it that you
have to worry about; it's the twenty thousand-odd rounds
labeled `occupant.'"
--Murphy's Laws of Combat
