[Imap-use] UW's DNS-based approach vs. perdition/proxies
Jeroen van Aart
kroshka at atypon.com
Wed Apr 23 13:21:46 PDT 2008
Mark Crispin wrote:
> That document is Informational, meaning that it does not carry the
> weight of a specification (which would be standards-track: Proposed
> Standard, Draft Standard, Full Standard).
I understand, and it is obsoleted by http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1912,
which appears to also suggest a low TTL to not be a good idea. Even if
no "authorative" rfc suggests a TTL of less than say 1 day is a bad
idea, I would think that current bad practices of certain name servers
can make it problematic to depend on low TTLs.
> such as UW's deskmail domain. Nor does this document claim to take such
> special-purpose domains into account; much less establish a requirement
I was wondering how deskmail deals with this. Are users being told to
use that specific nameserver, as the primary one in their dns
configuration? I guess that would avoid this problem but may add an
extra level of confusion, seeing it's hard enough as it is to explain
how to configure an email client. Let alone the name servers in
someone's network configuration.
More information about the Imap-use