roblem comes when the
expire is close to or the same as the refresh.
I have no idea why someone would want their domain to break after 5
minutes (or a day) of no contact between secondary and primary but
am of course happy to let people do it if it's intentional.
> I think your suggestion is a good one but would it be possible to write the
> code so that if refresh or expire time is below a certain amount, or the
> difference between them is less than a certain figure/proportion then the
> alerts are switched off for that domain and a warning given on the panel
> page. It's then up to the customer to keep an eye on it.
Even though alerts can still be disabled right now without asking
support, you would still recommend that no alerts are sent in this
case?
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
From andy@??? Sun Jan 29 17:45:53 2012
Received: from andy by mail.bitfolk.com with local (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <andy@???>) id 1RrYp7-0004uV-8p
for users@???; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:45:53 +0000
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:45:53 +0000
From: Andy Smith <andy@???>
To: users@???
Message-ID: <20120129174553.GN23380@???>
References: <20120129152937.GU32046@???>
<CAMe3QpNockhJfp5oYVTjEuF8bxhkZOgqAig-xOebUoc-k8u58w@???>
<20120129174148.GM23380@???>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-ripemd160;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="KC8n6y+EC4k2kdZR"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120129174148.GM23380@???>
OpenPGP: id=BF15490B; url=http://strugglers.net/~andy/pubkey.asc
X-URL: http://strugglers.net/wiki/User:Andy
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Sun,
29 Jan 2012 17:45:53 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: andy@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd0.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=NO_RELAYS shortcircuit=no
autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message was not relayed via SMTP
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?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:45:53 -0000
--KC8n6y+EC4k2kdZR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Keith,
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 05:41:48PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 05:14:12PM +0000, Keith Williams wrote:
> > I think your suggestion is a good one but would it be possible to write=
the
> > code so that if refresh or expire time is below a certain amount, or the
> > difference between them is less than a certain figure/proportion then t=
he
> > alerts are switched off for that domain and a warning given on the panel
> > page. It's then up to the customer to keep an eye on it.
>=20
> Even though alerts can still be disabled right now without asking
> support, you would still recommend that no alerts are sent in this
> case?
You are not alone in this btw; another off-list response suggested
having the web site warn that the refresh/expire times are unwise
and that alerting will therefore be disabled because of that. Then
allow to turn back on if desired.
Cheers,
Andy
--=20
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
--KC8n6y+EC4k2kdZR
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)
iEYEAREDAAYFAk8lhdEACgkQIJm2TL8VSQuNuACeJ4/NnRkd7PIpt2r8xR89qat5
p0wAoPRf532OB31flRB7E34Mdjk4ARa/
=s4s+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--KC8n6y+EC4k2kdZR--
From keithwilliamsnp@??? Sun Jan 29 18:14:12 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 1RrZGV-00067D-NP
for users@???; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:14:12 +0000
Received: by obbwd18 with SMTP id wd18so1643533obb.21
for <users@???>; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:14:05 -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=w1xcC6SkhivVp4Nw2KRTL3rUQdDTpVVnfNnfRAVzw0c=;
b=kSPaS5kKlpzIauqUk02YFikPgXuLI7a7Fj1bsh6D/mxWSdcq7SwJgnNVLo1jnMWMUQ
Yd5lBVTsw+zb5sSHwagUGVTjxb5+aY4112/EBL8N7H+o0OiEK1jGHstexBHSmFYHFDLE
OlE2IMPImKChfyjiBwz7+XUfg/PIsNJvEio1o=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.45.102 with SMTP id l6mr22697212obm.0.1327860844988; Sun,
29 Jan 2012 10:14:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.11.70 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:14:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20120129174553.GN23380@???>
References: <20120129152937.GU32046@???>
<CAMe3QpNockhJfp5oYVTjEuF8bxhkZOgqAig-xOebUoc-k8u58w@???>
<20120129174148.GM23380@???>
<20120129174553.GN23380@???>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:14:04 +0000
Message-ID: <CAMe3QpNcDf5h_MBf67a+Vi_vKOQ9ngbN_kty5rAxavZYcyguMQ@???>
From: Keith Williams <keithwilliamsnp@???>
To: users@???
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0444ef0bfa090804b7aeb1a2
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Sun,
29 Jan 2012 18:14:12 +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
spamd1.lon.bitfolk.com
