4 ms·
That's a laughably bad and dishonest response from Slack. They are redirecting the blame to ISPs now.
by betaby 5y ago
That's a laughably bad and dishonest response from Slack.
They are redirecting the blame to ISPs now.
- azundo 5y agoAre they blaming them though? Is this not the actual fastest path to resolving the issue?
- walrus01 5y agounless you are a customer of a very tiny ISP the odds of getting the person on the phone who has root on their recursive caching nameservers provided to DHCP clients are minuscule.
- znpy 5y agoAnd chances are they wouldn't flush that entry for you anyway.
- kreeben 5y agoI wonder how much electricity will be spent flushing then repopulating the caches of each and every DNS server on the globe. Prolly not that much?
- lima 5y agoNo need to flush the full caches. Clearing caches for individual zones is not uncommon.
- wk_end 5y agoThey should at least say something like "we're working with major ISPs to resolve the issue". It really comes off as walking away from a disaster of their own making.
- lima 5y agoNo, the fastest path is putting the signature back. But I guess Route53 won't let them do that.
- alex_c 5y agoMissing part of that quote is "This issue was caused by our own change and not related to any third-party DNS software and services." Seems refreshingly honest to me. Slack screwed up, it's not anyone else's fault, but there's nothing Slack can do about it now, here's a workaround.
- paxys 5y agoIt's more dishonest to read one part of one line and draw conclusions from it without quoting the entire response.
- ziddoap 5y agoWhich part of the full Slack reply is dishonest?