nanog mailing list archives
Re: DNS - connection limit (without any extra hardware)
From: Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 12:20:47 -0600 (CST)
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Petri Helenius wrote:
Geo. wrote:I know this is kind of a crazy idea but how about making cleaning up all these infected machines the priority as a solution instead of defending your dns from your infected clients. They not only affect you, they affect the rest of us so why should we give you a solution to your problem when you don't appear to care about causing problems for the rest of us?Has anyone figured out a remote but lawful way to repair zombie machines?
Microsoft auto-update, the telephone line, going to a different country with a different set of rules. Gadi.
Current thread:
- DNS - connection limit (without any extra hardware) Luke (Dec 08)
- RE: DNS - connection limit (without any extra hardware) Geo. (Dec 08)
- RE: DNS - connection limit (without any extra hardware) Gadi Evron (Dec 08)
- RE: DNS - connection limit (without any extra hardware) Geo. (Dec 08)
- Re: DNS - connection limit (without any extra hardware) Joe Abley (Dec 08)
- Re: DNS - connection limit (without any extra hardware) Daniel Golding (Dec 10)
- Re: DNS - connection limit (without any extra hardware) Matt Ghali (Dec 10)
- RE: DNS - connection limit (without any extra hardware) Gadi Evron (Dec 08)
- RE: DNS - connection limit (without any extra hardware) Geo. (Dec 08)
- RE: DNS - connection limit (without any extra hardware) Matt Ghali (Dec 08)
- Re: DNS - connection limit (without any extra hardware) Gadi Evron (Dec 08)
- Re: DNS - connection limit (without any extra hardware) Aaron Glenn (Dec 08)
- Re: DNS - connection limit (without any extra hardware) Petri Helenius (Dec 08)