Re: (on-topic) / RE: Site Finder

[Michael Loftis <mloftis () wgops com>]

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