Re: [Zinq-general] Caching SERVFAIL?

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 06:30:32PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> Hi Jos!

Hi Mark :)

> http://marc.info/?l=djbdns&m=108560819606350&w=2
> 
> Questions, Queries, Posers:
> 
> Why the change?  What's with the DNS_T_AXFR?  I'll take a stab at the
> former and guess maybe that the downside from a cached SERVFAIL
> (bounced mail, etc) was determined to be worse than the performance
> benefit of not repeatedly trying to contact horked servers?

That sounds like a good guess (but I'm no DNS expert). "It seemed like a good
idea at the time." Per IP is obviously harder to implement.

-- 
Jos Backus
jos at catnook.com