Query on ignoring additional section returned in replies

[Barry Margolin]

In article <mailman.2962.1447861903.26362.bind-users at lists.isc.org>,
 Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:

> Am 18.11.2015 um 16:47 schrieb Barry Margolin:
> > In article <mailman.2958.1447847777.26362.bind-users at lists.isc.org>,
> >   Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
> >
> >> when a result looks like below it needs to be fixed and "Are there any
> >> BIND specific workarounds?" is the wrong question becaus even if - the
> >> domain owner is not in the position to place workarounds somewhere else
> >
> > While that's the pedantically correct answer, in practice it doesn't
> > work well when your users complain "Google DNS deals with it, why don't
> > you?" Your users don't care what happens to people somewhere else, they
> > just want to get their work done.
> 
> the pedantically correct answer would have been "if you can't convince 
> your DNS operator that something is wrong fire him and seek for somebody 
> with a clue what he is doing which implies running tools like the quoted 
> regulary"

It's not your DNS operator, it's someone else's.

> 
> > Google understands that there are lots of broken DNS configurations out
> > there, but their users don't want to hear that it's someone else's fault
> 
> the users shouldn't take notice of such config bugs at all because it 
> should not last for longer than a few hours until get proactive fixed

The OP said he reported the problem to the domain owner. They ignored 
his report, because Google DNS doesn't have a problem resolving their 
domain.

-- 
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA