You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: How do you get off ORBS nowadays?

  • To:
  • From: Gunnar Lindberg < >
  • Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:31:47 +0200 (MET DST)

I'm not going to claim DNS expertise, but it seems to me that
responses would consume less bandidth than providing (faulty) data.


>From owner-anti-spam-wg@localhost  Mon Jul 16 12:21:37 2001
>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:21:16 +0200
>From: furio ercolessi furio+as@localhost
>To: Piet Beertema <Piet.Beertema@localhost
>Subject: Re: How do you get off ORBS nowadays?
>Message-ID: <20010716122116.E6374@localhost>
>References: <20010716115749.C6374@localhost> <UTC200107161011.MAA17446.piet@localhost>
>In-Reply-To: <UTC200107161011.MAA17446.piet@localhost>; from Piet.Beertema@localhost on Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 12:11:08PM +0200

>On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 12:11:08PM +0200, Piet Beertema wrote:
>>     > The guy running was giving secondary service
>>     > to, NOT to
>> Then why is he giving an *authoritative* answer for
>> <revaddr>, with a TTL of 7 days and
>> without that TTL counting down?
>> And why is the *only* secondary doing so?

>Because he found himself with his connection flooded by
>DNS queries after ORBS was disconnected, and wants to recover
>his bandwidth.  I am not defending his choices, just reporting
>what he said.  There is probably an announcement by him
>(Ron Guilmette) on (and other
>antispam forums such as SPAM-L).

>The other sites running the secondaries are probably not so concerned 
>about the extra bandwidth.

>furio ercolessi

  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>