Should be dnsreport.com

Re: Should be dnsreport.com

From:

Date:

Time:

At 6:10 PM -0600 12/22/03, Mia's Virtual Post Office wrote:

>>>>"WARN
>>>>Glue at parent nameservers
>>>>WARNING. The parent servers (TLD2.ULTRADNS.NET.) are not
>>>>providing glue for all your nameservers.
>>>
>>>... simply because they don't have, perfectly correctly, the
>>>frigging glue, and never will have. Nothing's broken, nothing's
>>>to fix, neither the TLD NS, nor in your DNSs, nor in your domain
>>>delegations or host registration. That's how DNS delegation, and
>>>host registration, works.
>>
>>
>>And dnsreport is not saying anything is broken or needs to be fixed.
>
>But to those who are not savvy at DNS and or do not have a good
>understanding of DNS it is extremely misleading and does appear to
>the untrained to be a problem, a failure, broken, whatever.. I

Understood...but then those people aren't competent to be managing
DNS in the first place if they can't recognize that it's a tool; and
not their sysadmin. Even for the completely not competent to manage
their own DNS, dnsreport can only benfit them.

> get a lot of questions from users of dnsreport.com asking about
>this and other "Warn" messages at that site.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Anyone care to comment on this?
>>>
>>>I had a big thread with the DNSReport guy about DNS Report sending
>>>people off on wild goose chases into many lists, like the one
>>>you're on, trying to fix or solve the unbroken. His report
>>>comments are simply wrong at worst, and are misleading, confusing
>>>logorrhea at best.
>>
>>You said that a few months ago, and you're saying it again now. I
>>asked you for supporting evidence then (which you did not provide).
>>Should I bother asking again?
>
>What evidence do you need?

I'm happy to see that at least finally the request for evidence has
at least been acknowledged. How about a specific and verifiable
dnsreport-generated zone report with your notations of what items are
"wrong at worst" and "misleading , confusing logorrhea at best"??
I'll settle for a single such report.

> Why do I or anyone for that matter need to point out the obvious?

Because the only people it seems "obvious" to are you and Len.

>What is the love affair with the site?

It is not so much a love-affair (it's just a useful tool which has
_never_led me wrong as much as your and Len's hate affair with it.
You both have attacked it on more than one occasion, but when asked
for supporting evidence (ours is an empirical profession, after all),
you both go out of character and provide nothing.

I say out of character, because I have found both of you to be
knowledgeable on the EIMS and QDNS respectively...where one would
never even need to question your statements...because you present the
supporting evidence with it. However, in this case, you both have
made numerous condemning accusations without supporting evidence (you
recently on the EIMS list), and worse yet, ignored such requests for
evidence after the fact.

If dnsreport.com is as "wrong at worst and misleading , confusing
logorrhea at best" as Len states and you pass off as presumably
miceandmen.com conclusion on the EIMS list, then surely neither you
nor Len should have no trouble backing up your accusations.

> I stand by my claims. All I need provide is 80% of the people
>visiting the site get the wrong impression about possible problems
>and non-problems regarding their DNS.

And how could you possibly come about some metric?

>That in and of itself is evidence enough to support my claims that
>the site is misleading and inaccurate in its anaylisis.

We haven't even shown that the figure is approaching anything
remotely valid yet, so drawing conclusions is pointless.

>>>And the kind of visitors who use his site are frequently,
>>>predominantly?, DNS-ignorant, and are easily mislead by, eg, his
>>>"glue" BS.
>>
>>Unless you have access to his http logs, such a conclusion is
>>nothing more than speculation on your part...and insulting
>>speculation at that.
>
>It's not an insult, it is true.

How can you possibly be in a position to know this? Short answer is
that neither you nor Len are. It is merely unfounded speculation on
your parts.

>Ignorant does not mean stupid. I still contend that the entire site
>should not be used as the save all, end all analysis system for ones
>DNS.

That's a straw man argument I cannot disagree with. However, nobody
now or ever on 1) the QDNS mail list, 2) the EIMS mail list, and 3)
the dnsreport.com site as ever said it was.

It's just a very useful tool.

>It is inaccurate, misleading and altogether dangerous.

You and Len keep saying this...but never present the evidence...even
when asked. How about the both of you try to refrain of slandering
them until you do have verifiable and supporting evidence to present?

>If there were better explanations and links to certain warnings

I see now. This is what I suspected all along. Your biggest beef
seems to be that dnsreport.com does not provide all-encompassing
analysis and fix explanations for its reports. That's true...and if
it were a paid site, you might have a gripe. However, it's a free
site designed to be a tool for people like you and me. It's presumed
the user has some familiarity with dns as well as common knowledge
that all online automated tools should not always be taken at face
value. It is not intended to be the "save all, end all analysis
system for ones DNS" and does not state anywhere that it is.

Again, it's a very useful tool. If people want more detail they can
either hire an experienced dns admin or become their own dns expert.

>>dnsreport provides a valuable and free tool. If it perfect? Is
>>anything perfect? Do you know of any better tool for audits of dns
>>zone records? Is that tool free? Does that tool run under OS X?
>>
>
>Yes, a good understanding of DNS, "DNS and BIND" comes to mind, that
>our the ISP-DNS list, or this list.

If it's 0200 on a Sunday, and I want a quick independent birds eye
view of one of my zone's general health as seen externally, are any
of those going to be of use? No. I want a quick and dirty independent
analysis of the zone. Does that mean I accept all analysis results
without question? No. However, I've used dnsreport.com for a while as
well as both my Mac and Windows licenses for DNS Expert, and all of
the above does nothing but help. I can't see how anybody can possibly
assert the otherwise with dnsreport.

I am 100% willing to stand corrected with verifiable evidence.

> While it can be considered a nice free tool for analysis, it
>needs to be understood that while not perfect, it is completely
>misleading in some areas at many times..
>
>Anyway, I do not want to create a pissing match over a DNS analysis
>web site. But from my own stand point and experience, the site has
>done more harm than good.. It raises questions and doubt in the
>minds of those who view it from time to time when their should be
>none.

Are you saying it raises questions and doubts in the minds of unnamed
people who then convey that to you? Or are you saying it creates
doubts in your own mind? I certainly am rarely certain or necessarily
trusting of its recommendations (like Glenn, I see zero need for
secondary MX's), but it's information is almost always useful. Where
there appears some question or ambiguity, background dns knowledge
and a good search engine fill in the blanks. That's why I can't
understand for the life of me why you and Len attack it...as you both
are obviously experienced. Is there something I'm missing? Is there
any evidence?

--Mike

Sales:
888/4-DPOINT

Support:
858/452-3696