Annoying dynamic DNS updates (was Re: someone from attbi please contact me ...)

Mon Sep 29 16:24:16 UTC 2003

I think the solution is for those DNS operators affected who have not
signed an EULA for the system that is hammering their DNS to sue Micr0$0ft
for the costs incurred in dealing with the issue.  Making Micr0$0ft
play legal whack-a-mole may be the only strategy with a chance of success
here.

(I recommend small claims so that worst case, your down side is minimal).

Owen

--On Saturday, September 27, 2003 6:56 PM -0500 Tim Yocum <tim at yocum.org> 
wrote:

>
> In previous mail, Sean Donelan said:
>> Are you talking about the kitchen sink protocol called DNS, or trying
>> to contact another ISP, or the sociological difficulties of educating
>> the general public how to configure very complicated "personal" computers
>> and software without making a mistake?
>
> Unfortunately, telling end users to disable a default setting is
> rather difficult these days. It's too bad that Microsoft hasn't
> addressed this issue in the past several years that it has been
> an enabled-by-default option.
>
>> Why is dynamic DNS update enabled by default on some operating systems?
>
> Back in beta days, the official explanation given was that the DNS
> updating was a "value add" and that it would never be disabled as
> a default as a courtesy to corporate customers. Furthermore, MSFT
> folks have repeatedly said that the workaround is to simply configure
> your nameserver to silently ignore the error logs.
>
> Neat policy, eh? I would assume that the dynamic updating feature
> is something easily toggled via a registry script; larger ISPs ought
> to include this "fix" as an option with their installation CDs. Alas,
> we get back to the ongoing debate: adjust user prefs for them, for
> their own good... or get the vendor to cooperate?
>
> - Tim