maybe a dumb idea on how to fix the dns problems i don't know....

[vixie at isc.org (Paul Vixie)]

> > actually, it does (need a bigger posse).
> 
> Rhetoric aside, no it doesn't.
> 
> Choosing not to implement (or permit, as an operational decision) TCP
> because of concerns about state is what you go on to talk about; what you
> were actually replying to was the wholesale denial of 53/tcp out of
> simple ignorance, which I would be surprised to hear you endorse, even if
> it happens to coincide on this instance with the results of your
> analysis.

not doing tcp/53 because the last guy didn't do it is the first step toward
not doing tcp/53 because it's amazingly fragile.  sorry to cross the streams
without a diagram.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.