very,
forever.
So, what do you think I should do?
I'm not willing to give up on the alerts because I think most people
would like to know when their DNS setup is broken (or in danger of
being broken), and it saves me having to personally interact to tell
people this. Intentional DNS breakage is not my problem, but
answering/opening support tickets is.
Alerting can be disabled on a per-domain basis. Currently only by
asking support, but eventually you'll be able to flip that on the
Panel=B9.
So how about have Panel warn on the web page about what are
considered unwise SOA values, and just allow the alerts to be
disabled if for some reason this sort of fragile DNS setup is
intentional?
Cheers,
Andy
=B9
https://panel.bitfolk.com/dns/#toc-secondary-dns
--=20
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
--SO+9/CRZBGNspxuY
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREDAAYFAk8lZeEACgkQIJm2TL8VSQtTRwCfe9AbxMoKFbgdv/8xA8A8dfaH
7RYAn1zljbTaxOVjcWXItydio80cYDOY
=AS62
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--SO+9/CRZBGNspxuY--
From keithwilliamsnp@??? Sun Jan 29 17:14:21 2012
Received: from mail-tul01m020-f176.google.com ([209.85.214.176])
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <keithwilliamsnp@???>)
id 1RrYKa-0003kP-VE
for users@???; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:14:21 +0000
Received: by obbwd18 with SMTP id wd18so1603010obb.21
for <users@???>; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:14:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:content-type; bh=LxZFpnPA3t+CRHnejE+rA7OQB2ckFl3b1kLs7eulXGs=;
b=HBU/rU9y3RMQejtUW/wSfz2V01B0AGBGvuEEs45V5/qzWN7nGA1IrTaGOzIq8xJLV9
j9EyFjtDZDi9PrronBX1vZYmUmclcdvBR1Yc0oe7gXj98kWR9J8dPRBGAn4nkdHWMnpO
mkkMm3aWkiczPRS/B4dS2/W4I8Zq16+QyDEsY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.47.106 with SMTP id c10mr22234246obn.20.1327857252481;
Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:14:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.11.70 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:14:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20120129152937.GU32046@???>
References: <20120129152937.GU32046@???>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:14:12 +0000
Message-ID: <CAMe3QpNockhJfp5oYVTjEuF8bxhkZOgqAig-xOebUoc-k8u58w@???>
From: Keith Williams <keithwilliamsnp@???>
To: users@???
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9399b0dd8bad004b7addbb3
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Sun,
29 Jan 2012 17:14:21 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.214.176
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: keithwilliamsnp@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd0.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no
autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
low * trust
* [209.85.214.176 listed in list.dnswl.org]
* -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's * domain
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
* 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
* valid
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:11 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] DNS refresh and expire values, alerting
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subje
