E.3000906@???>
<4F364EB3.3000604@???>
<85f2071f1be555fe6f6a47eb6bafbb58.squirrel@???>
<4F36BCE3.7080905@???> <20120211191946.GG23380@???>
<4F36CD4D.9030101@???> <20120211205803.GH23380@???>
From: Robert Gauld <robert@???>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:48:27 +0000
Message-ID: <CAL4jrwQ2UPjjE=vjBcZNYXw_jNJEHfi5dzkecw7bw6158Uuw7w@???>
Cc: users@???
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174c153e902ad304b8bdeb2c
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnI9JmxymEIwKLXzZLSguBr9N7S8PxrML1VwNE6A+dLgEqnFuUiRb364bDZ/9dYU9dmOnWN
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Sun,
12 Feb 2012 05:49:17 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.215.176
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: robert@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd0.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,MISSING_HEADERS,NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
low * trust
* [209.85.215.176 listed in list.dnswl.org]
* -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
* 1.2 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header
* 0.0 NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP URI: Uses a dotted-decimal IP address in URL
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's * domain
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
* 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
* valid
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:11 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] Mass (50+ domains) DNS hosting at BitFolk
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:49:19 -0000
--0015174c153e902ad304b8bdeb2c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 11 February 2012 20:58, Andy Smith <andy@???> wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 08:19:25PM +0000, Ian wrote:
> > Andy said:
> >
> >> I do not recommend having all your nameservers in 85.119.80.0/21. If
> >> Jump Networks were to go off the air, none of your nameservers would
> >> be reachable. Of course, if everything you host is at BitFolk then
> >> that may not matter much, but still.
> >
> > Yeah, it has been that, having two VPSes,
>
> Do you mean two VPSes at BitFolk? If so, can you explain a bit more?
> Just trying to understand your needs here.
>
> > and the 50 domain limit which has put me off doing this.
>
> There's currently one customer who has just over 50 domains on the
> BitFolk secondary service, and I haven't yet contacted them to see
> what they want to do about it because:
>
> a) I haven't thought too much about what to charge for "above 50",
> and;
>
> b) Before charging I would like to have a better web interface in
> place so that customers can add, remove and disable domains
> without having to submit support tickets.
>
> So I have let them languish at just above 50 and will continue to do
> so until I have more of an idea.
>
> I haven't got rid of the 50 limit because I do still think there
> needs to be some sort of limit. The next person down the list by
> domain count is somewhere around 20 so it hasn't been a pressing
> issue.
>
> I should probably have realised though that there might be more of
> you who were just put off by there seeming to be nowhere to go.
>
> How many domains do you have? What would you consider a fair price
> for DNS hosting for them? Are there missing features that you feel
> would need to be implemented before BitFolk could actually charge
> for the >50 case?
>
> I want to focus on doing DNS hosting for existing customers only,
> which means they have the ability to run their own master DNS
> server(s)=B9. I don't want to get into hosting DNS with a web
> interface to manipulate zone content. I want to provide the DNS
> servers and monitoring of them, and basically any other assistance
> you can think of that enables you to run your own stuff.
>
> I appreciate that for a lot of people with a large number of domains
> the question may still be, "why would I pay BitFolk when there are
> compan
