Discuss mailing list

[sjeap <sjeap AT lavabit.com>]

OK, that would be useful for some people, I think. For Windows, if you
would work with Perl-scripts, this may could simplify the case:
http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=230377 (might be working with
Windows 7 as well).

Regards sjeap

Am 10.10.2012 23:26, schrieb Jeff Taylor:
> No, it's not just a Windows, problem, but Windows is the most difficult
> to work with.  On Linux (and probably on Mac), it would be a simple
> matter of writing up a script that is run by a cron job... maybe once an
> hour refresh the entries.  I could write up something like that one of
> these evenings and get it posted for use, unless someone else wants to
> do it.
> 
>
>-------- Original-Nachricht --------
>Betreff: Re: [opennic-discuss] Policy proposal for removal of
>non-responding T2 servers
>Datum: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 23:02:49 +0200
>Von: sjeap <sjeap AT lavabit.com>
>Antwort an: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
>An: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
>
> There we go, this should be one of them, as far as I remember.
> 
> Regards sjeap
> 
> Am 10.10.2012 22:57, schrieb Hunter 9999:
>> > 
>> > What is is with this one:
>> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/opennicwizard
>> > If I understand the description, it automate this process, or not?
>> >
>> >-------- Original-Nachricht --------
>> >Betreff: Re: [opennic-discuss] Policy proposal for removal of
>> >non-responding T2 servers
>> >Datum: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:53:58 +0200
>> >Von: sjeap <sjeap AT lavabit.com>
>> >Antwort an: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
>> >An: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> > 
>> > This isn't a Windows problem only, I think, if you want to create a
>> > process as described, you have to use a separate program with Linux, Mac
>> > OS X or Android, too. Better than a Windows-only service, I assume.
>> > There are some efforts to create such tools (also for OpenNIC), but I
>> > currently don't remember the names. It's something more advanced than
>> > those under http://wiki.opennicproject.org/HomePage#hn_DNS_Wizards,
>> > needs a search through the mail archive.
>> > 
>> > However, I would agree on a somewhat shorter period, if everyone would
>> > use only ONE DNS server. But actually one uses at least two or more DNS
>> > servers (at different regions), so the average user would recognize an
>> > outage of one DNS server not until a longer period. Therefore this
>> > depends on what the change of periods is for. The public listings are
>> > primarily for the average users. But generally, the more precise, the
>> > better, it doesn't hurt.
>> > 
>> > Regards sjeap
>> > 
>> > Am 10.10.2012 21:17, schrieb Jeff Taylor:
>>>> >> > Keep in mind that the zone files and various lists are only being 
>>>> >> > used
>>>> >> > for human reference.  When you configure DNS service on your 
>>>> >> > computer,
>>>> >> > you are entering an IP address directly.  It would certainly make
>>>> >> > everyone's life much easier if there were a method for using 
>>>> >> > hostnames
>>>> >> > for your DNS entries... however since you need dns working to look 
>>>> >> > up
>>>> >> > the hostnames, you get into a catch-22 situation.
>>>> >> > 
>>>> >> > If someone were to write a Windows service that periodically 
>>>> >> > updated the
>>>> >> > computer's DNS entries based on the information we provide, then 
>>>> >> > having
>>>> >> > rapid updates to server status would be more useful.  It would be a
>>>> >> > simple matter for me to add country-based entries to the zone file 
>>>> >> > that
>>>> >> > only list the servers which are currently functional, then users 
>>>> >> > could
>>>> >> > simply pick which list they want to use as their pool, and their
>>>> >> > computer could automatically be kept up to date with the appropriate
>>>> >> > information.  THIS is something that I think would really make us 
>>>> >> > stand
>>>> >> > out ahead of other alternate DNS services, because then no-one 
>>>> >> > should
>>>> >> > have any issues with name resolution despite the rotating pool of 
>>>> >> > public
>>>> >> > servers.
>>>> >> > 
>>>> >> >-------- Original-Nachricht --------
>>>> >> >Betreff: Re: [opennic-discuss] Policy proposal for removal of
>>>> >> >non-responding T2 servers
>>>> >> >Datum: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:09:55 +0100
>>>> >> >Von: Peter Green <peter AT greenpete.free>
>>>> >> >Antwort an: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
>>>> >> >An: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > I agree, to be seen as a serious organization, OpenNIC needs to 
>>>> >> > offer
>>>> >> > serious reliability.
>>>> >> > 
>>>> >> > Whilst I have admiration for volunteers efforts, I suggest not
>>>> >> > volunteering if you can't make the mark.
>>>> >> > 
>>>> >> > Peter
>>>> >> > 
>>>> >> > 
>>>> >> > On 10/10/12 19:01, Jamyn Shanley wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > Given how critical DNS is to both the end-user experience 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > and
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > general net functionality, I don't understand why 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > non-responsive
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > servers aren't removed from the zonefiles within 15 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > minutes of a
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > problem. There's no reason why they couldn't be put back in
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > rotation within an hour or two of being 100% functional 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > again, but
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > I gotta say if my local ISP had a policy that allowed them 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > 7 days
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > to get one of their DNS servers fixed (and also left the
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > problematic server listed on their website/documentation) 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > I'd be
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > ... disappointed in their professionalism.
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Jeff Taylor
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net <mailto:shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net>> 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > While finishing up the code, I decided that what makes the 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > most
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > sense is to take a server offline based on a value of 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > <days>, but
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > then to bring it back online again based on a value of 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > <hours>.
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > The offline status is really just an extension of the 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > temp-outage
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > status, but this step gets a server removed from the public
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > listings.  I certainly don't what this status to be viewed 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > as a
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > 'punishment' to the admins involved, rather it should be 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > considered
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > a notice to the users that there is an extended problem 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > occurring.
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > It is interesting that between both replies so far, you 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > have both
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > suggested the opposite extremes for bringing a server back 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > into
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > the pool.  My feelings on this is that since the code will 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > automate
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > the process, we can keep the time fairly short, however 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > the server
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > was marked offline for a reason, so we want to make sure 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > it is
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > running smoothly for a long enough period that we can be 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > sure it is
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > stable again.  For this reason, I think 48 hours would be a
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > reasonable period. We should probably get some more 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > opinions on
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > this matter.
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > We all seem to be in agreement that 7 days is a good 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > length of time
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > to wait for issues to be resolved before marking a server 
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > offline,
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > so I'll stick with that value while moving forward.
>> > 
>