Re: DNS: defining "AURSC" domains

Re: DNS: defining "AURSC" domains

From: Adam Todd <at§>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 17:24:49 +1000
>no answer from adam on the issues raised.

PLenty of answers, I'm really getting borded of repeating myself.

>i guess this signals that
>(a) nope, there isn't any real uptake of his servers, and 

And you base this on what?  Your desire to mislead the public and this list?

>(b) the '.aus' nameservers aren't actually RFC2010 compliant.

Since when did a "name server" require RFC2010 compliance?

Only ROOT SERVERS meed to be RFC2010 complaint.  AURSC servers are.

Lincoln, speaking from your ear isn't getting you very far.  

Are you getting confused between AURSC and AUS?  I hope not.

>i'm also still attempting to work out who "leigh" is, that adam keeps

Error, it ws meant to be Lincoln.

>the info i collected in finding out the caching nameservers large isps use,
>this could be something useful for you to index in the ISP list you keep.
>waddya think?  it'd be a useful way of finding out the exact (lack-of) uptake

Again, you are making comments based on your personal feelings and
inability to follow simple instructions.

I am so tempted to post the damn users list, but considering I'd be in
breach of my agreements, and the list of users is confidential, I won't.
no matter how much *I* as an individual wish to.  Some restraint huh.

However if you join AURSC and use it, you will no doubt join the AURSC mail
list for Members and thus will receive your own personal copy of such

It's totally YOUR CHOICE.  But I do strong suggest you refrain from making
any comments on AURSC uptake or what you call visibility.

Can you PING the AURSC servers.  If so you have 100% Visibility to the
AURSC resources. 

>of certain bogus root-nameservers.

Bogus? You mean not real root servers.  You mean AURS isn't RFC2010
compliant? Or are you making allergations that are about to get you into
very hot water?

>NB. at least there is some discussion going on about the ".au"
>namespace, even if the signal:noise ratio is a little low.

I didn't start the wild accusations.
Received on Fri Jun 19 1998 - 17:58:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:03 UTC