In
<17715(_dot_)46729(_dot_)504599(_dot_)943486(_at_)saint(_dot_)heaven(_dot_)net>
"Dick St.Peters" <stpeters(_at_)netheaven(_dot_)com> writes:
wayne writes:
If they were *really* concerned about DNS loads, they would publish
TXT records with a long TTL. Or, better, locate their name servers
somewhere else where the traffic isn't a problem.
This just makes the problem worse. For example, if you're an African
company, you don't want your communication with your African
correspondents to require trans-Atlantic DNS queries.
Er, sorry, let me rephrase what I said:
If they were *really* concerned about DNS loads, [....] Or,
better, use the bind "view" so that queries that cross the
expensive link would see name servers somewhere else where the
traffic isn't a problem.
I forget how many times resolvers retry failed UDP DNS lookups, but I
think it is something like 3 or 4. So, by timing out, they are
actually increasing their load.
Personally, I still suspect that the real problem is a broken DNS
proxy. I suspect that someone somewhere gave the "this saves
bandwidth on an expensive link" as an excuse, and in that situation,
the excuse works very well to get people to stop complaining.
-wayne
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com