Hi Adam,

Quoting Adam Todd:
| 
| 203.37.232.130      proxy.znet.net.au                           349
| 203.61.202.5        mail.znet.net.au                            613
| Now see you show Geko.znet.net.au, but I don't even have that listed in my
| reports.  A clear indication that you are looking at the WRONG servers.
| 
| 203.24.133.1        nhj.nlc.net.au                              8202
| 203.24.133.4        monster.nlc.net.au                          12
| And again, you only list ONE of the nlc servers, there are two making queries
.

Hey - once I worked out just one of the nameservers supported AURSC I was
convinced the ISP supported it. I don't see why I had to check every
single nameserver for the provider to determine the same thing? Perhaps
you can explain your logic to me?

If I got a negative response I checked the next, and so forth until I either
(a) got a positive result, and marked it as a "supporter", or (b) ran
out of nameservers.

i.e.

For Zip:

  querying NS records for zip.com.au
  authorities for www.zip.com.au = yarrina.connect.com.au, zipper.zip.com.au, warrane.connect.com.au, dns.zip.com.au
  asking yarrina.connect.com.au about www.au.rsc (0)
  asking yarrina.connect.com.au about www.ah.net (1)
  asking zipper.zip.com.au about www.au.rsc (0)
  asking warrane.connect.com.au about www.au.rsc (0)
  asking dns.zip.com.au about www.au.rsc (0)
ZIP.COM.AU .... aursc 0, legacy 1

For Zed.Net:

  querying NS records for znet.net.au
  authorities for www.znet.net.au = gecko.znet.net.au, nancy.soncom.com, dns.znet.net.au
  asking gecko.znet.net.au about www.au.rsc (1)
  asking gecko.znet.net.au about www.ah.net (1)
ZNET.NET.AU .... aursc 1, legacy 1

| errors.  You must remember that a "listed" DNS server for providing
| resolution to the PUBLIC INTENET is not necessarily the resolving DNS
| server used by the clients of that site.

I "must remember" this? I commented to this fact in my post, so I don't
see how I'd have forgotten it.

| A DNS server itself can, by using the /etc/resolve.conf file use another
| DNS server to gain it's answers and thus not be a forwarder, caching server
| or anything else.

Gee Really? I said it was a "ballpark". 

| You again, show your extremely limited understanding of DNS servers.

Oh yeah. (again) 

| You will find that my DNS servers, alone work in this fashion where data is
| served from a set of servers, but clients use another set for caching.

I know. (again)

| <sigh>
| 
| Kim, thanks for showing yet again how abismally educated the average
| Australian ISP is.

(I'm not an ISP)

| Oh and yet again for the record:  It's not always the ISP who is using
| AURSC, some users are just a little more intelligent than the ISP.
| 
| 203.36.35.27        dialup-8.melb.ozramp.com.au                 7
| 203.36.35.28        dialup-9.melb.ozramp.com.au                 7
| 203.36.35.48        dialup-29.melb.ozramp.com.au                5
| 203.36.35.65        dialup-46.melb.ozramp.com.au                3
| 203.36.35.72        dialup-53.melb.ozramp.com.au                1

What does that prove? For all we know that is just _one_ solitary user
who had logged on five different times with different dynamic IPs with 
AURSC set up as their resolver.

| Well your still about 45 ISPs short of producing a list.  I'm so pleased
| you found time to waste your bandwidth and that of the ISPs.

Even if you have 45 providers, that is still a piss in the ocean -
given that the top dozen providers have a large majority of the clients,
and as quoted by Lincoln don't resolve AURSC domains by default. 

| I'll tell you what.  I'll produce the full list, but I want everyone on
| this mail list to send me a signed document, with a company seal stating
| they will not infringe, make further comment about (without my writen
| authority), make statements of/about/to, or harass any of the users/isps
| using AURSC.  Add in a breach clause indicating you will surrender $100,000
| in CASH upon such breach.
| That's pretty fair.

Sounds like I don't care.

| So: SHUT UP AND STOP TALKING ABOUT AURSC.

I'm sure most here would be absolutely delighted if AURSC was never
mentioned here again. Alas you are also one that keeps bringing it up.
You can't expect to go unchallenged if people don't agree with what you
post.

Even in my not-yet-deleted collection of recent emails from DNS I can 
quickly find a post where you have talked about AURSC without being 
provoked into retaliation:

<3.0.5.32.19980619113928.019fe790&#167;alpha.ah.net>:
> Take note that the Australian Root Server Confederation on behalf of it's
> members and users will be participating in the below mentioned workshops.
>
> http://www.giaw.org/participants.htm
>
> Take note also that AHNET as a corporate entity will also be participating
> as a representative of the Internet COmmunity and DN Server Operator.
>
> /snip sig/

sidenote.. Six months ago I was quite happy for you to talk about AURSC and 
float your ideas, but after months and months of your endless invective and 
dribble it really becomes hard for someone not to grow to hate you. I really
do hope you see that if your aim here is to rally support for your cause -
that you're really going 180 degrees to your intended course.

kim