Minimum TTL?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 08.02.2018 um 17:03 schrieb Barry Margolin:
> In article <mailman.427.1518103401.749.bind-users at lists.isc.org>,
>   Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
> 
>> frankly, even *if* i pay for the service i would call it a good citizen
>> to produce less load and the "minimum-ttl" also reduces load from other
>> RBL's without any restriction
> 
> If the service provider is worried about load, they should increase
> their TTL to reduce the frequency of queries. It's not your job to
> second-guess them.

let my job me my own problem - seriously - my server - my rules - period

if named can't serve my needs than "dnf remove bind; dnf install 
unbound" is the solution and was it on mailservers

named is great as authoritative server but not for RBL's which also can 
be used on webserver (web-application firewall where you try to reduce 
latency as much as you can)