1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1WqPH2-0006FO-QM
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 30 May 2014 16:03:16 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.217.178 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.217.178; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-lb0-f178.google.com;
Received: from mail-lb0-f178.google.com ([209.85.217.178])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WqPH1-00055G-Uo
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 30 May 2014 16:03:16 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f178.google.com with SMTP id w7so1113771lbi.23
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 30 May 2014 09:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.203.236 with SMTP id kt12mr13232924lac.8.1401465789261;
Fri, 30 May 2014 09:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Fri, 30 May 2014 09:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <lma8om$4va$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <20140523221726.GA30143@petertodd.org> <lltfaa$2lv$1@ger.gmane.org>
<20140526163753.GA18693@petertodd.org> <lm0e7m$thg$1@ger.gmane.org>
<b6884e2a-42b7-4c3f-a034-3a466aeec751@email.android.com>
<lm0i6b$4m9$1@ger.gmane.org>
<cae15a82-73f7-4703-bc7d-f433b002e06e@email.android.com>
<CALDj+Bax5De1gh1wsz_BjTFTerjzrazZ4SBgEVvYGjhFw3+uEw@mail.gmail.com>
<bce4e62749b3325d884caaf510e9d862@webmail.mckay.com>
<CALDj+BZSYojZ1kQqb_5zrpjc=5E94bbZ7a0PG4bkZx38J0zHWQ@mail.gmail.com>
<48331d04b68b3d6554b4e59e97ffbafe@webmail.mckay.com>
<CAPg+sBj83Dnrk5nuBenATgJGD3ZJKC-BzcKe+03fJGF93qs+Rw@mail.gmail.com>
<lma8om$4va$1@ger.gmane.org>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 09:03:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRv2GmfAxCODhTfemseHrHc2BO_d9Qi3K9JekpvhMOPhg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1WqPH1-00055G-Uo
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] testnet-seed.bitcoin.petertodd.org is up
again
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 16:03:17 -0000
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Andreas Schildbach
<andreas@schildbach.de> wrote:
> I maybe have made this suggestion in the past, but why don't we teach
> the seeder (or maybe even plain bitcoind) how to write a zone file and
> then use matured DNS servers to serve this zone?
>
> I admit I never ran my own DNS so I'm not sure if that can work -- but
> to me it sounds like the easiest approach plus everyone can just use
> stock server software.
We'd used an approach like that previously and I believe it produced
fairly bad load imbalances, especially since some resolvers only pass
on a single result. And that was before there was a wide deployment of
broken client software that trusted the dnsseeds exclusively.
|
