Re: [cobalt-users] Re: RAQ3 as primary AND secondary DNS

[Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Brent Sims wrote:

> } That's very admirable, but again, if the customer only has a single
> } RaQ, and less than a hundred clients, secondary DNS is a mute point.
> 
>         The point is not mute. Section 3.3 of RFC 2182 explains why
> this argument is "fallacious".

mute:  unable to make sound
moot:  of no consequence

<smile>

Please note that I no longer bother to waste time trying to convince
people they need secondary DNS.  Find out the hard way when your system
is down for an hour and your customers try to reach you and their email
client tells them you're out of business <wry grin>.

(Of course Brent I realize I'm not responding to you <smile>.)

Jeff
-- 
Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
nobaloney.net
P. O. Box 52672
Riverside, CA  92517
voice: (909) 787-8589  *  fax: (909) 782-0205