bind-9.3.2-33.fc5

[Kevin Darcy]

broadcast wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Kirk wrote:
>   
>> Forgive me if this is not true, but it seems that you are
>> mis-understanding the point being made by most everyone that has
>> kindly replied to your questions.
>>
>> The problem you are experiencing is *most* likely *not* a
>> mis-configuration on your part, but on the DNS administrators
>> responsible for the domains which are failing.
>>     
>
> Well, Thank you Kirk for the enlightment, I know exactly what Mark and
> others were talking about and I am sure that there is a problem with
> the remote DNS configuration.
> what am trying to do is find a work around or something that will keep
> our customers satisfied. when other providers don't face such problems
> and am facing them then the customers will so easly just move.
> reporting remote domains about mis-configuration of their records is an
> important thing and am actually doing it. but also losing customers is
> something that i should avoid.
> You guys all were very helpful. but forgive my stubbornness or whatever
> you would call it when i see the very same mis-configured websites
> working with other DNS servers not mine, then they may have some kind
> of a work around or they are not using the same software.
>   
Those other ISPs might be using BIND 8, which was pretty sloppy about 
delegation and glue issues, but might be able to deal with certain 
categories of misconfigurations better than BIND 9, which tends to be 
more strictly RFC-compliant. If they're using BIND 8, though, then they 
have a whole raft of *other* issues to deal with (lack of query restart 
being high on the list, as well as higher security risk, inferior 
multi-processor support, no support for "view"s, etc.).

Really, everyone picks their poison. For my part, I'd rather go with 
something that adheres to standards. At least in that case it's fairly 
cut and dried who is in the wrong and who isn't. Eventually many if not 
most of the misconfigured sites will figure out that they're losing 
customers (or hits or views or mail messages or whatever) because of 
their own incompetence. Those that *don't* figure that out will probably 
go under, and good riddance to them.

                                                                         
                     - Kevin

P.S. Do you really *want* the kind of ignorant, ISP-hopping customer 
that won't accept your explanation of why the site doesn't resolve properly?