New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
DNS Checking Tool Feedback
Hi,
My name is Vitalie Cherpec, I'm developing a DNS checking tool (http://www.dnsinspect.com/). I've migrated this tool from Ruby on Rails + EventMachine to Go (to save resources, now it runs very smoothly on a small VPS ).
In this version I've added support for IPv6, although the project is covered by unit tests. I need more testing to catch corner cases, also my English it's not brilliant if you see something stupid let me know . If you have a few seconds to look at I'll be grateful.
Thanks,
Vitalie
Comments
Hey Vitalie
Very nice site
Are you sure the SPF check is working correctly? It's displaying "WARNING: Domain doesn't have SPF record" for the domains i've tested although they have SPF records.
Looks pretty sweet :-) Good job!
The SPF records show for my domain names, though.
Looks great
Wow, very nice.
You could do with a logo perhaps?
Very cool tool. Couldn't see any issues with it.
Let me check. Your SPF configuration is stored in TXT records or SPF records?
Awesome tool.
SPF working fine from the sites I have tested on it.
Agree with ishaq, nice logo would do wonders for this site
Maybe some of the creative people here could help you with that.
I'll consider using a logo & favicon. Thanks!
@vitalie are you sure you made that tool? I could of sworn I saw the exact same tool with the exact same features for sale on http://codecanyon.net/
But it does look nice
Looks very good @vitalie!
Compared to some other dns check tools I have yours is easier to read.
@curtisg I think people actually code stuff rather than announce projects/steal snippets * Ahem *
@vitalie very nice. only annoying thing during job running is meta refresh of entire browser.
Please change and use jquery polling so it's a nice/seamless experience.
Otherwise from some small formatting I think it's very nice, possibly superior to intodns.com
Oh, I do remember very well how I've spent my evenings in the last 2 months. Yes, I've built it, I've made it to be:
fast website
...
etc
My Todo list is still big. Sorry, I can't find anything on that website related to my tool.
In SPF records, they are the records for Google Apps
One point to think about - returning a temporary error (450) does not mean that the mail server does not accept emails for postmaster. It's just greylisting (postgrey).
And one more thing - don't see why mail server greeting should contain the hostname. I mean you could use the same mail server for many domains.
very nice
kudos to @vitalie
bookmarked
@vitalie nice tool!
I especially liked the serial number check section:
I don't like how a lack of AAAA records is a "warning" and not an "info" or something similar:
I don't understand this section:
The tool states that our mail server does not offer its host name in it's greeting, but it does?
=====================
Otherwise, a very nice tool, and I will be using it in the future. Thank you!
Good suggestion, but I have to avoid jQuery until the mobile version is ready. Thank you!
I've deployed a new version with the fix. Thank you!
Yes, it's a temporarily error. I'll have to adjust the message. Thank you!
I guess it means that there is a discrepancy between the name it was expecting ("ipxcore.com") and the name it actually got ("cpanel1.ipxcore.com")
Wow, that's a nice tool. Great job!
Great tool, bookmarked.
I'll agree with that- I don't see it as a must to have IPv6 records for my name servers currently.
This warning helps to spot SPAM issues (if you are using this server to send emails) with HELO/EHLO & reverse PTR checks (http://tldp.org/HOWTO/html_single/Spam-Filtering-for-MX/#smtpchecks). It should say that this mail server claims to be B and I've made reverse PTR checks for A in previous section. I have to put a more meaningful message. Thank you!
@rds100, said:
Highly agree with this.
@vitalie, very nice!
Yes, INFO instead WARN is more appropriate here.
Interesting configuration. I'm checking the distribution of the IP addresses across multiple class C networks. You have two name servers with multiple addresses which are shared between those servers. I have to adjust this test. Thank you!
Excellent work!
love the tools and design. How about adding article about how to fix that problem to which mark as Warn?
Nice tool. Two things:
> WARNING: Name servers software versions are exposed:
176.124.112.100: "Rage4 DNS - http://www.rage4.com"
176.124.113.200: "Rage4 DNS - http://www.rage4.com"
2a00:dd80:fb80::100: "Rage4 DNS - http://www.rage4.com"
2a00:dd80:fb80::200: "Rage4 DNS - http://www.rage4.com"
Maybe it's possible to move it from Warning to Info or parse the response and detect non standard responses.
nice tool =D added to my FAV tools.