Is lame servers an issue?

Mark Andrews Mark_Andrews at isc.org
Thu Jul 3 00:16:36 UTC 2008


> ok .ok. ok (I was about to say something else, but I think think I  
> figured out where I was wrong in my previous post). Instead of saying  
> "lame servers are sorta like the mail that you receive at your new  
> home that are addressed to the previous home owner" would it be  
> correct to say "lame servers are like the junk-mailers that have the  
> wrong name on file for who lives at your new house (after all, it's  
> the mailer that has the name on file, not the post office)?" From the  
> perspective of Carlos and HIS server, someone out there thinks that  
> his server has authority - but isn't - and since he doesn't, and it's  
> someone else's misconfiguration, he can just ignore it (or send the  
> logs to null). Or is this BACKWARDS? I've thought that a line in the  
> log like what the OP was concerned about meant that MY server was  
> asked directions, but are you saying that my server is the one doing  
> the asking (and then so noting the lame server)?
> Mike

	You server is doing the asking and then so noting the remote
	lame server.

	Mark

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews at isc.org


More information about the bind-users mailing list