Hi,
I was going to upgrade from BIND 9.4.3 to BIND 9.6.0-P1, but run into a
strange "bug" in BIND 9.6.0-P1.
Exact same config for 9.4.3 and 9.6.0-P1, only added "new" to files that
are written to (namednew.log, confignew.log and namednew.pid).
OS: Solaris 10.
Using:
pid-file "/var/ru
Yes, I tried to downgrade to 9.50 p2 and the problem was there to.
It's is looks like a bug on windows 2008 machine, isnt it?
Also, you can see that there is 8 lines of the same messages. Each for 1
core CPU.
-Original Message-
From: Danny Mayer [mailto:ma...@gis.net]
Sent: Monday, Janu
Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <497cae4b.4020...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
>> Joe Baptista wrote:
>>> So a little more testing using firefox as an application gives us some
>>> interesting results. Using the .TM TLD I entered http://tm/ into my
>>> browsers. It did not work. Firefox
On 25-Jan-2009, at 23:06 , Barry Margolin wrote:
In article ,
Matthew Pounsett wrote:
In the example above, when I query for "IN A mx.xyz.com?" I do not
get
an address record back (A, )..instead I get a CNAME record.
Requirements NOT met.
Then there's something wrong with your resolv
In article ,
Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> In the example above, when I query for "IN A mx.xyz.com?" I do not get
> an address record back (A, )..instead I get a CNAME record.
> Requirements NOT met.
Then there's something wrong with your resolver, since they're supposed
to follow CNAME r
Danny Mayer wrote:
> Kobi Shachar wrote:
>> Recently I upgraded my bind machine to a new windows 2008 server web
>> edition 32 bit with 2 E5420 quad core CPU's.
>>
>> The server is configured with about 7000 master zone files.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since the upgrade, BIND hangs every 5-10 hours.
>>
>> I ch
Kobi Shachar wrote:
> Recently I upgraded my bind machine to a new windows 2008 server web
> edition 32 bit with 2 E5420 quad core CPU's.
>
> The server is configured with about 7000 master zone files.
>
>
>
> Since the upgrade, BIND hangs every 5-10 hours.
>
> I checked the logs and I saw th
Hi all, thanks in advance for any help. It is greatly appreciated.
I'm struggling a bit with setting up master and slave name servers. My goal is
just to run my own name servers for mydomain.com. I am not concerned at all
with any internal DNS configuration. There are no workstations or anythin
In message <497cae4b.4020...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
> Joe Baptista wrote:
> > So a little more testing using firefox as an application gives us some
> > interesting results. Using the .TM TLD I entered http://tm/ into my
> > browsers. It did not work. Firefox replaced http://tm/ wi
MX records are supposed to be pointed to the name the mail
exhanger knows itself as. This will correspond to a A
record. If I could work out a way to determine which A
records don't correspond to the name by which the mail
exchanger knows itself as I'd als
On Jan 25 2009, Chris Hills wrote:
Perhaps one day MX records can be deprecated entirely in favor of SRV.
Jabber got it right, and it would solve the e-mail server autodiscovery
problem for clients in a generic non-proprietary manner.
For example:- _smtp-server._tcp for servers, _smtp-client.
Perhaps one day MX records can be deprecated entirely in favor of SRV.
Jabber got it right, and it would solve the e-mail server autodiscovery
problem for clients in a generic non-proprietary manner.
For example:- _smtp-server._tcp for servers, _smtp-client._tcp for clients.
__
Recently I upgraded my bind machine to a new windows 2008 server web edition
32 bit with 2 E5420 quad core CPU's.
The server is configured with about 7000 master zone files.
Since the upgrade, BIND hangs every 5-10 hours.
I checked the logs and I saw these lines on the default log:
5-ינו-
Al Stu wrote:
> ISC’s message that a CNAME/alias in an MX record is illegal is incorrect
> and just an attempt by ISC to get people to go along with what is only a
> perceived rather than actual standard/requirement, and should be removed
> so as not to further the fallacy of this perceived percep
No it is only two steps, see the attachment (sent in previous message).
Both the CNAME and A record are returned for the mx.xyz.com DNS A request.
And this does met the RFC requirements.
- Original Message -
From: "Matthew Pounsett"
To: "Al Stu"
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 1
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> wrote:
> >
> > if metis.local is a CNAME, the PTR shouldn't point to it.
On 25.01.09 10:14, John Bond wrote:
> could you please explain this.
Although it's good to remove irelevant part of the text you are replying to,
this time you rem
On 25-Jan-2009, at 13:15 , Al Stu wrote:
Yes, blah was supposed to be srv1.
I do receive both the CNAME and A records for the A mx.xyz.com
query. See attached capture file.
In the capture file three global search and replacements were
performed to match the previous example.
1) domain
Attachment (hopefully)
- Original Message -
From: "Al Stu"
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: BIND 9.6 Flaw - CNAME vs. A Record in MX Records are NOT
"Illegal"
Yes, blah was supposed to be srv1.
I do receive both the CNAME and A records for the A mx.xyz.co
Joe Baptista wrote:
> So a little more testing using firefox as an application gives us some
> interesting results. Using the .TM TLD I entered http://tm/ into my
> browsers. It did not work. Firefox replaced http://tm/ with
> http://www.tm.com/ - which is not the web site I wanted to reach.
In
Yes, blah was supposed to be srv1.
I do receive both the CNAME and A records for the A mx.xyz.com query. See
attached capture file.
In the capture file three global search and replacements were performed to
match the previous example.
1) domain name was replaced with xyz
2) server name was
On 25-Jan-2009, at 12:41 , Al Stu wrote:
"That domain name, when queried, MUST return at least one address
record (e.g., A or RR) that gives the IP address of the SMTP
server to which the message should be directed."
@ 1800 IN A 1.2.3.4
srv1 1800 IN A 1.2.3.4
mx 1800 IN CNAME blah.xyz
No I do not believe an extra step was added. Take the following example for
instance.
STMP server smtp.xyz.com. needs to send a message to some...@xyz.com. An MX
lookup is performed for domain xyz.com. and the domain name of mx.xyz.com is
returned. This is the first sentence:
"When a do
On Jan 25 2009, Al Stu wrote:
RFC 2821 is much more recent and clearly documents in sections 3.5 and 5
that CNAME MX RR are permitted and are to be handled by SMTP MTA's.
3.6 Domains
"Only resolvable, fully-qualified, domain names (FQDNs) are permitted when
domain names are used in SMTP. In
On 25-Jan-2009, at 03:44 , Al Stu wrote:
"When a domain name associated with an MX RR is looked up and the
associated data field obtained, the data field of that response MUST
contain a domain name.That domain name, when queried, MUST
return at least one address record (e.g., A or
At 00:44 25-01-2009, Al Stu wrote:
"When a domain name associated with an MX RR is looked up and the
associated data field obtained, the data field of that response MUST
contain a domain name.That domain name, when queried, MUST
return at least one address record (e.g., A or RR) that g
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
>
> if metis.local is a CNAME, the PTR shouldn't point to it.
> --
could you please explain this. When i tried this host did not resolve
the cname. i.e a host 1.1.1.1 returned metis.local. it did not know
to resolve metis.local as b
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> Why don't you just use normal reverse DNS:
>
> zone for 1.1.1.in-addr.arpa
>
> 1 IN PTR metis.local.
> IN PTR bob-www-sol-l01.local.
I read there were problems having 2 PTR records for the same ip. I
know its in the RFC but thought MTA's
"When a domain name associated with an MX RR is looked up and the associated
data field obtained, the data field of that response MUST contain a domain
name.That domain name, when queried, MUST return at least one address
record (e.g., A or RR) that gives the IP address of the SMTP serv
RFC 2821 is much more recent and clearly documents in sections 3.5 and 5
that CNAME MX RR are permitted and are to be handled by SMTP MTA's.
3.6 Domains
"Only resolvable, fully-qualified, domain names (FQDNs) are permitted when
domain names are used in SMTP. In other words, names that can be r
At 22:11 24-01-2009, Al Stu wrote:
Some people seem to think RFC 974 creates a standard which prohibits
the use of CNAME/alias in MX records. But very much to the contrary
RFC 974 demonstrates that CNAME/alias is permitted in MX records.
RFC 974 is obsoleted by RFC 2821; the latter is obsolet
30 matches
Mail list logo
