[linux-elitists] DJB ruckus du jour
Wed Nov 13 16:29:22 PST 2002
Quoting Nick Moffitt (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> This is 100% true. I used to have all sorts of trouble with
> people not being able to get to zork because of a flaky backup
> nameservice provider.
I did, too -- until I learned to occasionally check on both my backup
DNS service and my backup MX service. It used to be that you could
get this done competently for you free of charge, because of the
understanding that you were willing to do likewise for others. These
days, you have to verify. I do so roughly every quarter.
> But if zork were actually down, the nameservice would go down too.
> What benefit did I really have that zork's nameservice would continue
> on even if it went down?
The most obvious benefit is that your MX hosts would be able to receive
and store your mail even after cached return values from your
now-unreachable nameserver expired, because there would be an offsite
secondary nameserver to refresh them from.
Your point is well taken, that defective secondary nameservice can do
more harm than good. So can a misconfigured backup MX host. But the
same is not true of backup services that _are_ functioning correctly.
Cheers, "I used to be on the border of insanity. However, due
Rick Moen to pressing political concerns, I recently had to invade."
email@example.com -- Kurt Montandon, in r.a.sf.w.r-j
More information about the linux-elitists