![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/a64z2tlDDD.png)
By just putting a number : 1 for Quad9, 2 for Mullvad DNS and 3 for NextDNS.
By just putting a number : 1 for Quad9, 2 for Mullvad DNS and 3 for NextDNS.
I have edited the release page for the alpha. I have modified the file to correct a bug and add the deletion of the backup file when the operation is finished and also restart systemd-resolved service.
Ok. I will see that! If you have a GitHub account. You can make an issue right now, so tracking the issue would be better for me. Or I could do that myself.
Edit : I have made a prototype that I could release it soon as an alpha. When it gets released, your goal is to test in a place where captive portals are present. Sadly, the script won’t be automatic but requires user interaction.
Edit 2 : it is now available as alpha on the releases page.
Hello! That’s something that I should keep an eye on! When speaking about Captive Portals, I just assume everyone uses 4G/5G (which doesn’t require these portals to be used) instead of open networks. My script already has DNSSEC disabled since it has caused some problems during testing. BTW, just a question : Are these portals very common? I haven’t seen one since years now.
Oh OK, this makes sense now. I use the PrivacyGuides DNS resolvers list :
https://privacyguides.org/en/dns
It includes Quad9, Mullvad DNS and NextDNS (which are already included in the script) and I will add Cloudflare, ControlD and AdGuard soon (which are present in the PG website I linked.)