From 8d47G40gt at stak1ed.net Wed Nov 24 10:18:37 2010 From: 8d47G40gt at stak1ed.net (8d47G40gt at stak1ed.net) Date: 24 Nov 10 10:18:37 AM Subject: We will mail 4 U Message-ID: <39djB1Au6QBHFIV> LET US DO YOUR BULK MAILINGS!!! ..$250 PER MILLION THE WAY OF THE FUTURE FOR SUCCESS IN YOUR BUSINESS! Our company will do bulk emailing for your product/service. Addresses are extracted daily by four of our computers, which run 24 hours a day 7 days a week, scanning the net for new addresses. They are fresh! Over 36 million addresses on file. No more than 2 pages (50 lines), no porn and no foul language. We do not do targeted mailings at this price. Targeted mailings $150 per 50,000 addresses extracted. There are no lower prices on the net. Your mailing can be done in a matter of hours. We have 4 computers extracting addresses 24/7. For the fastest service, cheapest prices and cleanest mailings call our processing and new accounts office at 904-282-0945, Monday - Friday 9 - 5 EST. If the line is busy, please keep trying, as bulk mailing is growing fast. We do want to work with you to advertise your product. $250 per million expires December 1, 1997. Price increases to $350 per million, $250 per 500,000. All orders received before December 1 will not reflect the increase. Even with the increase, we will still be the best prices on the net. To have your name removed, call our processing office. Any negative responses will be dealt with accordingly. From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Nov 3 17:08:56 2010 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 16:08:56 +0000 Subject: [dns-wg] Draft agenda for RIPE Message-ID: Colleagues, here is an almost final agenda for the WG at RIPE61. I don't expect there will be significant changes: perhaps minor tweaks to the running order. There are one or two loose ends that need to be clarified. However these are unlikely to make much impact on the overall agenda. Please note that the WG slots are not back-to-back for the first time in ages. The first one is on the Tuesday afternoon and is 2 hours long instead of 90 minutes. Your co-chairs have done some trading of slots with the other WGs to minimise the clashes with other WGs that would have been unpopular. That's why we gave up one of the usual Thursday slots this time. As always, comments and questions on the agenda are welcome. See most of you in Rome. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: dnswg61agenda.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- From jim at rfc1035.com Mon Nov 15 10:12:05 2010 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:12:05 +0000 Subject: [dns-wg] Final(?) agenda for RIPE61 Message-ID: Here is what should be the final agenda for the WG sessions this week. There's one minor tweak from the draft agenda. Jelte Jansen and Dave Knight have swapped slots. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: dnswg61agenda.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- From mir at ripe.net Mon Nov 15 14:48:43 2010 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:48:43 +0100 Subject: [dns-wg] New DNSMON beta user interface Message-ID: <4CE13A3B.4040109@ripe.net> [apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, A new DNSMON beta user interface has been published. Please find a description of the enhancements on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/markd/dnsmon-new-user-interface-update Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From cet1 at cam.ac.uk Mon Nov 29 22:31:39 2010 From: cet1 at cam.ac.uk (Chris Thompson) Date: 29 Nov 2010 21:31:39 +0000 Subject: [dns-wg] Replacing reverse zone delegations by DNAMEs Message-ID: I don't know whether this is the most appropriate forum to raise this issue --- but if RIRs can be persuaded to support the alternate form of reverse zone delegation suggested here, perhaps other authorities would do the same. Fragmentation of IPv4 space leads to organisations having lots of little reverse zones, each of which requires: managing the contents, maintaining the registration, organising official slaves, DNSSEC signing ... There is much uneconomic effort involved. Locally we have been using a scheme to map such reverse lookups into a single common zone, described at http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/cet1/prune-reverse-zones To take full advantage of this, however, requires promoting DNAMEs into the parent reverse zone. Logically, administrators of such zones ought to be delighted to replace delegations (multiple NS records, maybe DS records as well) with a single DNAME. But of course it has not been standard practice to support that. As DNAMEs do not redirect the name itself, there would be a problem for reverse zones containing significant records at the apex, e.g. PTR records pointing to a gateway host. (I think that practice, recommended in RFC 1033, has pretty much fallen into disuse.) If the IETF DNSEXT WG ever get their act together on "XNAME"/"CNAME+DNAME", that would cover that particular point, but meanwhile no-one would be obliged to use DNAMEs if they didn't want to. Anyway, I would welcome opinions on this idea. -- Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1 at ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QH, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.