Short answer: no. Quite the opposite, actually — Archive.is is intentionally blocking 1.1.1.1 users. Here's why.

tl;dr: No. Quite the opposite, actually — Archive.is’s owner is intentionally blocking 1.1.1.1 users.

CloudFlare’s CEO had this to say on HackerNews:

We don’t block archive.is or any other domain via 1.1.1.1. […] Archive.is’s authoritative DNS servers return bad results to 1.1.1.1 when we query them. I’ve proposed we just fix it on our end but our team, quite rightly, said that too would violate the integrity of DNS and the privacy and security promises we made to our users when we launched the service. […] The archive.is owner has explained that he returns bad results to us because we don’t pass along the EDNS subnet information. This information leaks information about a requester’s IP and, in turn, sacrifices the privacy of users.

I am mainly making this post so that admins/moderators at BeeHaw will consider using archive.org or ghostarchive.org links instead of archive.today links.

Because anyone using CloudFlare’s DNS for privacy is being denied access to archive.today links.

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/PmSkp

  • koper@feddit.nl
    31·
    1 year ago

    Good. Hopefully this will discourage people from using Clownflare’s DNS.

      • Psythik@lemm.ee
        2·
        1 year ago

        Wondering the same thing. CloudFlare DNS is so freaking fast.

        But at the same time I didn’t think of the privacy aspect so I want out. Is OpenDNS still good? How’s the speed?

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
          14·
          1 year ago

          It’s frustrating when people do that because there’s definitely valid critiques of CloudFlare, but that other guy calling them Clownflare and then not coming back to explain why is pretty juvenile and unhelpful (luckily another user came with a more realistic critique). Like, if it’s so bad, please offer alternatives and reasoning. I’m glad you liked Quad9 that I referenced elsewhere in the thread.

            • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
              13·
              1 year ago

              Nope, I meant to reply to you, but apparently didn’t make it clear to you that I was actually referring to the person above the person you were responding to. I changed the wording to reflect this a little bit. I’m sorry for the confusion, that’s my bad. You’re swell and have been. The other fella came and was rude about CloudFlare and didn’t offer reasons or alternatives. Once again, sorry.