Incorrect DNS Resolution for archive.is / archive.ph

Rikkert Yeah, I use these rewrites currently, but this isn't a solution for the problem. 

NextDNS should come forward with a solution, else it fundamentally undermines the point of their service if I can't trust the results I get from the DNS.

Their support is seemingly none existent which is really frustrating.

974RLOVqJX I agree completely, but as a paying customer, there should be some resolution here. Fix the DNS entries or communicate with archive.is. Something. What's to say most sites don't follow suit, and now we're having spotty coverage?

My point is simply that it undermines the DNS service if, when I go to request a site and it suddenly doesn't work, or goes to some unrelated IP, as per my post.

Finally, it isn't for me to figure out a solution on their behalf. I can be aware of limitations, and I am, but fundamentally, that isn't my problem to solve. It's a failure on NextDNS' side, irrespective of archive.is incorrect, authoritative responses.

974RLOVqJX Again, I think I agree with essentially all of your primary points. There are just a few things I wish to clarify.

I agree, under no circumstances should NextDNS compromise user privacy by sending additional EDNS client-subnet data to satiate archive.is, or whoever's site admin. Naturally, this would violate the core value of this service, and the precedent this would set would be counter-productive.

I agree, NextDNS should not silently and opaquely return a "fixed" IP that differs from the authoritative response due to transparency issues, as you note. My original request was purposefully provocative and not a serious suggestion. The user rewriting exists for that reason.

My frustration, and what I believe should be the "resolution," is not about compromising the transparency and integrity, but the lack of communication and proactive user-side solutions from NextDNS as a paid service. It's quite clear they don't care about their user base, delegating all forms of support to "the community," with paid support being optional or exclusive to businesses. I can't think of many other companies of similar sizes that don't have any first-party support. These complaints, like mine, are almost a laughable waste of time. Bug report? Let me report a bug to... a community member? What...?

NextDNS could have acknowledged the issue, officially explained why and offered a sanctioned/first-party workaround. But, no. As you demonstrated, you've had to refer to several community forum posts by users to figure out the bigger picture, and external service messaging to understand their intention. That's silly, especially as a paying member, which I assume you are.

My primary issue is the principle that, as paying customers, our expectation shouldn't be to solve this ourselves through community forums. NextDNS' responsibility is to diagnose the problem, communicate the issue, and provide a solution or an explanation for why no solution is available. This principle wouldn't violate NextDNS' integrity.

But as you point out, the issue is fundamentally with archive.is. But the communication responsibility for providing safe workarounds for paying customers lies strictly with NextDNS.

974RLOVqJX That's the kind of quality reply we expect as paying customers. Typos to comprehension issues. :D ^^