Re: On DNS for postgresql.org

> If we were playing DNS body part size wars then who has the bigger DNS
> clue might be relevant. We're not, though. Rather I'm saying that
> publicly criticizing people who volunteer services to a project, about
> things that are not related to the services they're providing is at best
> a little impolite.

Well this is fun. I suggest that you review Andrew's comments again.
Nothing he said was personal, they were direct criticisms of possible
technical administration failures.

We are not in the business of protecting egos for technical matters
here. If Andrew has said something to the effect of, "WTF Marc, do you
have a clue about what you are doing?" I would agree with your statement.

Andrew did not do any such thing. He merely presented his rather well
informed opinion on the matter of DNS and possible issues with the
current configuration. Frankly, he is correct, open recursive servers
are a bad idea. This isn't 2001, we need to be very careful with our
resources.

I see nothing wrong with that.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

> Cheers,
> Steve
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/