[TAG] freeshell.org service outage

[Benjamin A. Okopnik]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:26:27PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> I've been paying a little closer attention to SMTP errors, since the
> migration of LG's public mailing lists.  Here's one for TAG subscriber
> Sindi Keesan.  (I just received one each of these following Deepak and
> Ben's posts to the "TFTP problem" thread, and undoubtedly will get
> another for this one.)
 
I actually got bounced by Deepak's machine - about which I'll say
more in its own post.

[snip]

>   ~ $ whois freeshell.net | more

[snip]

>    Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
>    Record last updated on 03-Sep-2004.
>    Record expires on 02-Oct-2005.
>    Record created on 02-Oct-2002.
> 
>    Domain servers in listed order:
>       NS-A.FREESHELL.ORG   
>       NS-B.FREESHELL.ORG   
> 
> 
>    Domain status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
> 
> Er, I might be missing something, but having all of one's nameservers be
> in-domain seems like a bit of a hazard.  Sure, the top-level nameservers
> will also have their IPs as part of the DNS's "glue records", but the
> rest of us won't.  And having only two nameservers is a bit thin.

Indeed, it is a hazard; the few times that SDF has gone down, it was
like being shifted sideway into an alternate universe in which it had
never existed. The response from web browser, fetchmail, etc. amounted
to "Freeshell? What's a Freeshell? Go away, you silly man - we have no
time for psychotics with an overactive imagination."

> Anyhow, that's at least something to go on.  Let's find out what IP
> addresses the authoritative nameservers have:
> 
>   [rick at linuxmafia]
>   ~ $ host NS-A.FREESHELL.ORG
>   NS-A.FREESHELL.ORG has address 192.94.73.20
>   [rick at linuxmafia]
>   ~ $ host NS-B.FREESHELL.ORG
>   NS-B.FREESHELL.ORG has address 192.67.63.37
>   [rick at linuxmafia]
> 
> Well, at least that much of his DNS is working.

Wouldn't that be _your_ DNS that's working? Unless I'm mistaken, "host"
uses your /etc/resolv.conf to look up hosts - unless you specify another
DNS server explicitly.

> How odd.  Looks to me like the first nameserver doesn't respond, and the
> second returns some sort of null result.  Just out of old-fogydom, and
> as a cross-check on "dig", let's do the same query using nslookup (a
> tool that's now deprecated, in general):
> 
>   [rick at linuxmafia]
>   ~ $ nslookup -query=mx freeshell.org 192.94.73.20
>   ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
> 
>   [rick at linuxmafia]
>   ~ $ nslookup -query=mx freeshell.org 192.67.63.37
>   Server:         192.67.63.37
>   Address:        192.67.63.37#53
> 
>   ** server can't find freeshell.org: SERVFAIL

I believe that "host" is the recommended replacement for "nslookup"
these days; I groused a bit about having to learn its syntax, but it's
quite nice once you do. It's a sort of a cross between "dig" and
"nslookup":

``
host -t mx freeshell.org 192.67.63.37
freeshell.org           MX      50 smtp.freeshell.org
''

> Ben mentioned on a private mailing list that Stephen's a good guy and
> performs a generous service to the public but for reasons of personal
> experience loathes Linux.  I vaguely remembered when that came about,
> and have re-found the rant he posted at the time, which still makes
> interesting reading:
> 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20010712145226/http://www.lonestar.org/sdf/

Yeah, that was what I'd based my statement on; that, and the dance of
boundless joy that he performed on the Freeshell list after the move was
done (it's archived there, but it's not web-accessible AFAIK.)


* Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://linuxgazette.net *