Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard@tesco.net> wrote in message news:<3F4B4537.D100ED0C@tesco.net>...
> [This is cross-posted to the same places that the announcement was
> multi-posted, in order to save the unsuspecting, who might otherwise have
> na$(D??(Bvely trusted it and done as it suggests, any grief.]
> 
> KD> Here is our new site. It will take everyone to make it happen.
> KD> [...]
> KD> all are invited to set their name server info to 64.146.111.234
> KD> to join our community or to just look around.
> 
> I strongly recommend _not_ changing one's "name server info" to
> 64.146.111.234.  The DNS server listening on that IP address is both grossly
> misconfigured and egregiously broken.
> 
> One example of its gross misconfiguration is that in response to an "NS" query
> for "." it returns a list combining the "." content DNS servers from two
> entirely separate "." content DNS service organizations, with itself included
> as well (seemingly just for the heck of it).  This is a recipe for disaster -
> even for a _working_ DNS server software.
> 
> One example of its brokenness is that it cannot decide whether domain names
> exist or not.  Ask it an "A" query for "aroot.pacroot." (the intermediate name
> of one of the "." content DNS servers that it lists) and it will return an "A"
> resource record.  Ask it another type of query for that very same domain name,
> and it will respond with either "no such name" or "server failure".
> 
> Another example of its brokenness is that in response to queries with the RD
> bit set to 0 it returns empty resource record sets, even where the responses
> to the same queries with the RD bit set to 1 show that it has the real
> (non-empty) answers in a cache, and _even_ where the cached answer would
> actually be a "no such name" answer.
> 
> Next to the sheer wrongness of the responses that the software used by the
> 64.146.111.234 DNS server gives and the incompetent way that that DNS server
> has been configured, the fact that the content HTTP server for the relevant
> web site doesn't have virtual hosting correctly configured and operational
> seems relatively minor in comparison.

what would you do to fix these "issues" you can test the server at
http://www.dnsstuff.com then you can say more about it. What a little
snot.