Re: [SLUG] Verisign Annoyance?

From: Derek Glidden (dglidden@illusionary.com)
Date: Sun Sep 28 2003 - 01:35:06 EDT


On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 21:28, Andrew M Hoerter wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Levi Bard wrote:
>
> > So, what's the consensus, iptables or route? I'm personally leaning
> > toward iptables on the principle that it will only affect, say, my
> > incoming traffic, whereas if I use route, every packet will have to
> > cascade through the routing table before hitting the default route (in my
> > case).
>
> The best solution is to fix your nameserver(s) so it ignores the wildcard
> record altogether. (for example, using the delegation-records-only
> feature in BIND 9)
>

me++ && me.getCents(2) {

If anyone wants to be sure they are pointing to a DNS server that has
the "Block Verisign's s**theaded maneuver" patch enabled, please feel
free to point at:

66.152.21.136

which is ns.illusionary.com

}

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"We all enter this world in the    | Support Electronic Freedom
same way: naked; screaming; soaked |        http://www.eff.org/
in blood. But if you live your     |  http://www.anti-dmca.org/
life right, that kind of thing     |---------------------------
doesn't have to stop there." -- Dana Gould

----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:06:33 EDT